Vn 


Cibrarjp  of  "the  ''theological  ^eminarjo 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 

PRESENTED  BY 

Mr.  Leon  Arpee 

BT  775  . P7  1923 

Pohle,  Joseph,  1852-1922. 

Soteriology 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/soteriologydogma00pohl_0 


DOGMATIC  THEOLOGY, 

V 


THE  POHLE-PREUSS  SERIES  OF  DOG¬ 
MATIC  TEXT-BOOKS 

1.  God :  His  Knowability,  Essence  and  At¬ 

tributes.  vi  &  479  pp.,  $2.50  net. 

2.  The  Divine  Trinity.  3d  ed.,  iv  &  297  pp., 

$1.50  net. 

3.  God  the  Author  of  Nature  and  the  Su¬ 

pernatural.  v  &  365  pp.,  $1.75  net. 

4.  Christology.  iii  &  312  pp.,  $1.50  net. 

5.  Soteriology.  iv  &  171  pp.,  3d  ed.,  $1.25 

net. 

6.  Mariology.  iv  &  185  pp.,  $1.00  net. 

7.  Grace:  Actual  and  Habitual,  iv  &  443 

pp.,  $2.50  net. 

8.  The  Sacraments.  Vol.  I.  The  Sacra¬ 

ments  in  General.  Baptism.  Confirma¬ 
tion,  vi  &  328  pp.,  $1.50  net. 

9.  The  Sacraments.  Vol.  II.  The  Holy 

Eucharist,  iv  &  397  pp.,  $1.75  net. 

10.  The  Sacraments.  Vol.  III.  The  Sacra¬ 

ment  of  Penance,  vi  &  270  pp.,  $1.80 
net. 

11.  The  Sacraments.  Vol.  IV.  Extreme 

Unction,  Holy  Orders,  Matrimony, 
iv  &  249  pp.,  $2.00  net. 

12.  Eschatology,  iv  &  164  pp.,  $1.25  net. 

The  Whole  Set,  $20.00  net. 


SOTERIOL 


A  DOGMATIC  TREATISE  ON  THE 
REDEMPTION 


BY 


THE  RT.  REV.  MSGR.  JOSEPH  POHLE,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 


FORMERLY  PROFESSOR  OF  DOGMATIC  THEOLOGY  AT  ST. 
JOSEPH’S  SEMINARY,  LEEDS  (ENGLAND),  LATER  PRO¬ 
FESSOR  OF  FUNDAMENTAL  THEOLOGY  IN  THE 
CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA 


ADAPTED  AND  EDITED 

BY 

ARTHUR  PREUSS 


FOURTH,  REVISED  EDITION 


B.  HERDER  BOOK  CO. 

17  South  Broadway,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

and 

68,  Great  Russell  St.,  London,  W.  C. 

1923 


NIHIL  OB  ST  AT 
Sti.  Ludovici,  die  24.  Jan.  1923 


F.  G.  Holweck, 
Censor  Librorum 


IMPRIMATUR 

Sti.  Ludovici,  die  25.  Jan.  1923 

*{*Joannes  J.  Glennon, 
Archie  pis  copus 
Sti.  Ludovici. 


Copyright,  1913 
by 

Joseph  Gummersbach 

All  rights  reserved 
Printed  in  U.  S.  A. 


First  Edition,  1913 
Second  Edition,  1916 
Third  Edition,  1919 
Fourth  Edition,  1923 


VAIL -BALLOU  COMPANY 

BINGHAMTON  ANO  NEW  YORK 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

INTRODUCTION . i 

Part  I.  The  Work  of  Redemption . 3 

Prefatory  Remarks . 3 

Ch.  I.  Christ’s  Mediatorship  as  a  Condition  of  Our  Re-  5 

demption . 5 

§  1.  The  Possibility  of  the  Redemption . 5 

§  2.  Congruity  and  Necessity  of  the  Redemption  .  13 

§  3.  Predestination  of  the  Redeemer . 24 

Ch.  II.  The  Redemption  of  the  Human  Race  Through 

Christ’s  Vicarious  Atonement . 35 

§  1.  The  Reality  of  Christ’s  Vicarious  Atonement  .  .  35 

Art.  1.  Vicarious  Atonement  Defined  ....  35 
Art.  2.  The  Dogma  of  Christ’s  Vicarious  Atone¬ 
ment  Proved  From  Revelation . 41 

§  2.  The  Properties  of  Christ’s  Vicarious  Atonement  60 
Art.  1.  Intrinsic  Perfection  of  the  Atonement  .  60 

Art.  2.  Extrinsic  Perfection  or  Universality  of  the 

Atonement . 7  5 

§  3.  The  Concrete  Realization  of  Christ’s  Vicarious 

Atonement . 84 

Art.  1.  Christ’s  Death  on  the  Cross . 85 

Art.  2.  Christ’s  Descent  Into  Hell . 91 

Art.  3.  The  Resurrection . 101 

Part  II.  The  Three  Offices  of  the  Redeemer  .  .  .  .110 

Ch.  I.  Christ’s  Priesthood . in 

§  1.  Christ’s  Death  a  True  Sacrifice . in 

§  2.  Christ  a  True  Priest . 127 

Ch.  II.  Christ’s  Prophetical  Office . 140 

Ch.  III.  Christ’s  Kingship . .  .  149 

Appendix  . 165 

Index . 167 


INTRODUCTION 


Christology  deals  with  the  Person  of  our  Di¬ 
vine  Redeemer;  Soteriology  ffh  wrqptas  Aoyos) 
considers  the  object  for  which  He  came  into  this 
world.  This  object  was  the  Redemption  of  the 
human  race. 

Christ  became  our  Redeemer  or  Mediator 
solely  by  His  vicarious  atonement,  therefore,  re¬ 
demption  (mediation)  and  vicarious  atonement 
are  interchangeable  terms. 

The  fallen  race  of  Adam  was  not  simply  re¬ 
stored  as  a  whole  to  its  original  state  of  bliss.  In 
order  to  share  in  the  graces  of  the  Redemption 
each  individual  human  being  must  co-operate 
with  the  Redeemer.  To  be  able  to  do  this  man 
needs  ( i )  a  teacher,  who  authoritatively  instructs 
him  in  the  truths  necessary  for  salvation;  (2)  a 
priest  who  effectively  applies  to  him  the  merits  of 
the  atonement;  and  (3)  a  king  or  shepherd,  who, 
by  the  promulgation  of  suitable  laws  and  pre¬ 
cepts,  guides  him  on  the  way  to  Heaven. 

Hence  our  Divine  Lord  exercises  a  threefold 
function  or  office,  namely  (1)  that  of  Teacher, 
(2)  that  of  High  Priest,  and  (3)  that  of  King 

1 


INTRODUCTION 


i2 

or  Shepherd.  Cfr.  John  XIV,  6:  “I  am  the 
way  (King),  and  the  truth  (Teacher),  and  the 
life  (Priest).” 

Soteriology,  therefore,  naturally  falls  into  two 
main  divisions:  I.  The  Work  of  Redemption; 
II.  The  Three  Offices  of  the  Redeemer. 


PART  I 

THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


PREFATORY  REMARKS 

The  Redemption  could  not  have  been  effected 
by  a  mediator  who  was  either  mere  God  or  mere 
man.  It  required  one  who  was  both  God  and 
man.  Christ,  alone,  being  both  God  and  man, 
was  in  a  position  to  act  as  natural  and  moral 
mediator  and  to  reconcile  the  human  race  to  its 
Creator. 

We  have  shown  in  a  previous  treatise  that 
Christology  1  is  founded  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
Hypostatic  Union.  Similarly,  Soteriology  turns 
on  the  pivotal  concept  of  the  mediatorship  of 
Christ  and  may  be  said  to  be  implicitly  contained 
in  2  Cor.  V,  19:  “God  indeed  was  in  Christ, 
reconciling  the  world  to  himself.” 

We  have,  therefore,  to  consider:  (Ch.  I),  the 
mediatorship  of  Christ,  the  possibility  of  the  Re¬ 
demption,  its  congruity  and  necessity,  and,  by  way 
of  a  corollary,  the  highly  interesting  question 
whether  or  not  the  Incarnation  was  absolutely 

1  Pohle-Prouss,  Christology,  A  Dogmatic  Treatise  on  the  Incarnation,  St, 

Louis  1913. 

3 


4 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


preordained;  (Ch.  II),  the  fact  of  the  Redemp¬ 
tion,  its  reality,  its  properties,  and  the  concrete 
mode  of  its  realization.  In  connection  with  the 
last-mentioned  point  we  shall  also  treat  (Ch.  Ill) 
of  Christ’s  Descent  into  hell  and  His  Resurrec¬ 
tion  from  the  soteriological  point  of  view0 


CHAPTER  I 

Christ’s  mediatorship  as  a  condition  of  our 

REDEMPTION 

SECTION  i 

THE  POSSIBILITY  OF  THE  REDEMPTION 

I.  Definition  of  the  Term  "Mediator.” — 
A  mediator  ( mediator ,  a is  one  who  holds 
a  neutral  position  between  parties  at  variance, 
and  is  therefore  apt  to  interpose  between  them 
as  the  equal  friend  of  each. 

a)  Thus,  in  the  political  domain,  a  neutral 
government  sometimes  intervenes  between  quar¬ 
relling  powers  by  proffering  its  friendly  offices  as 
arbitrator. 

The  notion  of  a  mediator,  therefore,  comprises 
two  distinct  elements,  viz. :  (i)  The  exist¬ 

ence  of  two  extremes  in  contrary  opposition, 
and  (2)  a  quality  or  characteristic  proper  to  him 
who  interposes,  which  enables  him  to  reconcile 
the  parties  at  variance. 

This  is  the  true  Catholic  notion  of  mediatorship.  There 
is  also  an  heretical  one,  which  appears  in  the  religious 

5 


6 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


systems  of  the  Gnostics  and  the  Arians.  To  exalt  the 
Creator  of  the  universe  as  far  as  possible  above  mere 
matter,  which  they  regarded  as  intrinsically  evil,  the 
Gnostics  invented  a  series  of  “  intermediate  beings,1 ” 
which  they  called  aeons,  and  which  were  supposed  to 
bridge  the  gap  between  the  Godhead  and  the  material 
world.  The  last  of  these  in  a  descending  line  was  the 
so-called  Demiurge,  who  as  creator  of  the  material  uni¬ 
verse  was  believed  to  be  the  proper  mediator  between  the 
absolute  Being  and  the  physical  cosmos.2  The  Arians 
regarded  the  Logos  as  the  most  exalted  of  creatures  and 
as  creator  of  all  the  rest,  and  ascribed  to  him  the  office 
of  mediator  between  God  the  Father  and  the  universe 
created  by  the  Logos.  We  have  already  disproved  this 
error  by  showing,  in  our  treatises  on  the  Divine  Trinity  3 
and  the  Incarnation,4  that,  so  far  from  being  a  creature, 
the  Logos  is  true  God,  consubstantial  (o/ioowios)  with 
the  Father. 

b)  A  duly  qualified  mediator  may  exercise  his 
functions  either  in  the  moral  or  in  the  ontological 
order.5  In  some  manner  or  other  moral  always 
presupposes  ontological  mediation,  and  hence  the 
one  cannot  be  conceived  apart  from  the  other. 

To  perform  the  part  of  a  moral  mediator  one  must 
be  able,  either  by  one’s  natural  powers,  or  through  the 
instrumentality  of  grace,  to  reconcile  opposing  extremes 
in  the  order  of  being.  Hence  the  distinction  between 

2  For  a  refutation  of  this  dualistic  Trinity,  2nd  ed.,  pp.  49  sqq.,  St. 
error  see  Pohle-Preuss,  God  the  Au-  Louis  1915. 

thor  of  Nature  and  the  Supernatural,  4  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology, 
2nd  ed.,  pp.  17  sq.,  St.  Louis  1915-  2nd  ed.,  pp.  10  sqq.,  St.  Louis  1916. 

8  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  The  Divine  5  In  ordine  morali  sive  ethico;  in 

ordine  ontologico  sive  essendi. 


MEDIATORSHIP 


7 


mediator  naturalis  and  mediator  per  gratiam.  Moses,6 
the  Levites,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Apostles  were  medi¬ 
ators  by  grace.  So  is  every  Catholic  priest  in  virtue  of 
his  ordination.  As  regards  natural  mediatorship,  Christ 
is  our  only  Mediator  in  the  moral  order,  because  He  is 
the  sole  natural  Mediator  between  God  and  man.  “  The 
fact  of  Christ’s  existence  is  in  itself  a  mediation,  a  bond 
between  the  Creator  and  His  creatures.  By  uniting  our 
humanity  to  His  Divinity,  He  united  us  to  God  and 
God  to  us.  He  is  of  God  and  in  God,  but  He  is  also 
of  us  and  in  us.”  7  Being  consubstantial  with  man  as 
well  as  with  God,8  Christ  is  the  born  mediator  be¬ 
tween  God  and  man  ( mediator  naturalis). 

This  unique  natural  mediatorship  constitutes  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  an  equally  unique  moral  mediatorship.  The 
offended  Deity  exacted  adequate  atonement  for  the 
sins  of  mankind,  and  therefore  redemption  or  moral 
mediation  was  impossible  except  on  the  basis  of  a  natural 
mediatorship.9 

c)  It  follows,  by  way  of  a  corollary,  (i)  that 
mankind  has  but  one  mediator,  because  there  is 
no  natural  mediator  between  God  and  man  other 
than  the  Godman  Jesus  Christ;  (2)  that  all 
other  so-called  “mediators”  are  such  merely  by 
grace.  They  owe  their  mediatorial  power  solely 
and  entirely  to  Christ,  and  can  consequently  be 
called  mediators  only  in  a  subordinate  and  sec¬ 
ondary  sense. 

6  Cfr.  Deut.  V,  5:  "  Medius  fui  Catholic  Theology,  Vol.  II,  p.  140, 

inter  Dominum  et  vos  —  I  stood  2nd  ed.,  London  1901. 

between  the  Lord  and  you.”  8  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology. 

7  Wilhelm-Scannell,  A  Manual  of  9  V.  infra ,  Sect.  2. 


8 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


No  further  argument  is  required  to  disprove  the  Prot¬ 
estant  objection  that  Catholics  obscure  and  degrade  the 
unique  mediatorship  of  Christ  by  admitting  a  host  of 
priests  and  saints  as  co-mediators  between  God  and 
man.  “  It  is  an  essential  function  of  the  office  of  a 
mediator,”  says  Aquinas,  “  to  join  together  and  unite 
those  between  whom  he  is  to  interpose;  for  it  is  in  the 
middle  that  extremes  meet.  Now,  to  unite  men  with 
God  perfectively  belongs  to  Christ,  through  whom  men 
are  reconciled  to  God.  .  .  .  And  therefore  Christ  alone 
is  a  perfect  mediator  between  God  and  men,  inasmuch  as, 
by  His  death,  He  reconciled  the  human  race  to  God.  .  .  . 
There  is,  however,  nothing  to  forbid  others  from  being 
called  mediators  between  God  and  men  under  a  certain 
respect  ( secundum  quid),  in  so  far,  namely,  as  they  co¬ 
operate  in  uniting  men  with  God,  either  by  disposing 
them  for  such  a  union  {dispositive) ,  or  by  assisting  them 
in  the  process  of  unification  {ministerialiter).”10 


2.  The  Dogma. — Theologically  speaking,  Me¬ 
diation  is  synonymous  with  Redemption.  That 
Christ  was  our  natural  Mediator  is  an  article  of 
faith,  defined  by  the  Council  of  Trent.  “Si  quis 
hoc  Adae  peccatum  [ originate ]  .  .  .  per  aliud 
remedium  asserit  tolli  quam  per  meritum  unias 
mediatoris  Domini  nostri  Iesu  Christi,  qui  nos 


10"  Ad  mediatoris  officium  propria 
pertinet  coniungere  et  unire  eos,  in¬ 
ter  quos  est  mediator;  nam  extrema 
uniuntur  in  medio.  Unire  autem 
homines  Deo  perfective  quidem  con- 
venit  Christo,  per  quern  homines 
sunt  reconciliati  Deo.  .  .  .  Et  ideo 
solus  Christus  est  perfectus  Dei  et 
hominum  mediator,  inquantum  per 
suam  mortem  humanum  genus  Deo 


reconciliavit.  .  .  .  Nihil  tamen  pro- 
hibet  aliquos  alios  secundum  quid 
did  mediatores  inter  Deum  et  ho¬ 
mines,  prout  scil.  cooperantur  ad 
unionem  hominum  cum  Deo  disposi¬ 
tive  vel  ministerialiter .”  S.  Theol., 
3a,  qu.  26,  art.  i. —  Cfr.  Franzelin, 
De  Verbo  Incarnato,  thes.  46,  Rome 
1881. 


CHRIST  OUR  MEDIATOR 


9 


Deo  reconciliavit  in  sanguine  suo  .  .  .  anathema 
sit  ”  Anglice :  “  If  any  one  asserts  that  this 

sin  of  Adam  [original  sin],  ...  is  taken  away 
.  .  .  by  any  other  remedy  than  the  merit  of  the 
one  Mediator,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath 
reconciled  us  to  God  in  His  own  blood,  ...  let 
him  be  anathema.”  11 

a)  Moral  mediation,  or  the  Redemption 
proper,  according  to  Holy  Scripture,  consists 
in  the  shedding  of  the  blood  of  Him  who  was 
the  sole,  because  the  natural,  Mediator  be¬ 
tween  God  and  man.  Consequently,  Christ's 
moral  mediatorship  is  based  upon  His  natural 
mediatorship.  Cfr.  Col.  I,  19  sq. :  ((Quia  in 
ipso  [scil.  Christo ]  complacuit  omnem  plenitudi - 
nem  inhabitare  [  =  mediatio  ontologica  natu - 
ralis ]  et  per  eum  reconciliare  omnia  in  ip  sum 
pacific ans  per  sanguinem  crucis  eius  [—mediatio 
moralis ] — Because  in  him  it  hath  well  pleased 
the  Father,  that  all  fulness  should  dwell;  and 
through  him  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  himself, 
making  peace  through  the  blood  of  his  cross.”  12 
Both  the  ontological  and  the  moral  mediatorship 
of  Christ  are  pregnantly  summed  up  by  St.  Paul 
in  1  Tim.  II,  5  sq. :  <(  Unus  enim  Deus,  unus 

11  Cone.  Trid.,  Sess.  V,  can.  3  12  For  a  full  explanation  of  this 

(in  Denzinger’s  Enchiridion  Sym-  text  cfr.  J.  N.  Schneider,  Die  Ver- 
bolorum,  Definitionum  et  Declara~  sohnung  des  Weltalls  durch  das  Blut 
tionum  in  Rebus  Fidei  et  Morum,  Jesu  Christi  nach  Kol.  I,  20,  Ratis* 
ed.  Bannwart,  n.  790,  Friburgi  bon  1857. 

1908). 


10 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


et  mediator  Dei  et  hominum ,13  homo  Christus 
Iesns,  qni  dedit  redemptionem  semetipsum  pro 
omnibus  14 —  For  there  is  one  God,  and  one  me¬ 
diator  of  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus, 
who  gave  himself  a  redemption  for  all.” 

The  Redemption  of  the  human  race  began  with  the 
conception  of  Jesus  Christ  and  was  consummated  in 
the  shedding  of  His  precious  Blood  on  the  Cross.15 
Hence  the  functions  of  His  moral  mediatorship  comprise 
all  His  human-divine  (theandric)  acts  from  the  manger 
to  Calvary.  His  mediatorial  act  par  excellence  was  the 
institution  of  the  New  Covenant.  “  Et  ideo  Novi  Testa - 
menti  mediator 16  est,  ut  morte  intercedente  in  redemp¬ 
tionem  earum  praevaricationum,  quae  erant  sub  priori 
Testamento,  repromissionem  accipiant  —  And  therefore 
he  is  the  mediator  of  the  New  Testament :  that  by  means 
of  his  death,  for  the  redemption  of  those  transgressions 
which  were  under  the  former  testament,  they  that  are 
called  may  receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inheritance.”  17 
In  fact  everything  that  Christ  did  and  does  for  us 
must  be  regarded  as  the  result  of  His  mediatorship,  e.  g., 
the  institution  of  the  Holy  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  the 
establishment  of  His  Church,  the  mission  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  sanctification  of  souls,18  etc. 

b)  We  meet  with  a  profound  conception  of 
Christ’s  mediatorship  in  the  writings  of  St.  Au¬ 
gustine.  This  Father  may  be  said  to  have  antici¬ 
pated  the  objections  of  such  later  heretics  as 

13  els  Kal  /JLealrrjs  Oeov  Kal  15  Cfr.  Heb.  X,  5  sqq. 

avOp&iuav.  10  diaOritcTis  noivrjs  /xeaiTTfs. 

14  6  Sot's  iavrdy  dyrtXvrpov  virkp  17  Heb.  IX,  15. 

tt&vtwv.  18  Cfr.  John  XIV,  6. 


CHRIST  OUR  MEDIATOR 


ii 


Calvin,  who  held  that  Christ  is  our  mediator  only 
according  to  His  Divinity,  and  the  older  Lu¬ 
theran  theologians,  who  attributed  His  mediato¬ 
rial  action  exclusively  to  His  human  nature.19 

The  truth  lies  between  these  extremes.  It  is  the  God- 
man  as  such  who  is  our  Mediator,  but  only  in  His  hu¬ 
man  nature.  “  He  is  the  mediator  between  God  and 
man,”  says  St.  Augustine,  “  because  He  is  God  with  the 
Father,  and  a  man  with  men.  A  mere  man  could  not 
be  a  mediator  between  God  and  man;  nor  could  a  mere 
God.  Behold  the  mediator :  Divinity  without  humanity 
cannot  act  as  mediator;  nor  can  humanity  without  Di¬ 
vinity;  but  the  human  Divinity  and  the  Divine  humanity 
of  Christ  is  the  sole  mediator  between  Divinity  and  hu¬ 
manity.”  20  And  again :  “  Christ  is  the  mediator  [be¬ 

tween  God  and  man]  not  because  He  is  the  Word;  for 
the  Word,  being  immortal  and  happy  in  the  highest  de¬ 
gree,  is  far  removed  from  the  miseries  of  mortal  men; 
but  He  is  the  mediator  as  man.” 21 

c)  The  Schoolmen  went  into  the  matter  even 
more  deeply  by  resolving  the  concept  of  media¬ 
tion  into  its  constituent  elements. 


19  Cfr.  Bellarmine,  De  Christo,  V, 
i-io. 

20 "  Mediator  Dei  et  hominum, 
quia  Deus  cum  Patre,  quia  homo 
cum  hominibus.  Non  mediator  homo 
praeter  deitatem,  non  mediator  Deus 
praeter  humanitatem.  Ecce  media¬ 
tor:  divinitas  sine  humanitate  non 
est  mediatrix,  humanitas  sine  divini- 
tate  non  est  mediatrix ,  sed  inter  di- 
vinitatem  solam  et  humanitatem 
solam  mediatrix  est  humana  divinitas 


et  divina  humanitas  Christi.”  Serm., 
47,  c.  i2,  n.  2i. 

21  “  Non  ob  hoc  mediator  est 
Christus,  quia  Verbum;  maxima 
quippe  immortale  et  maxime  beatum 
Verbum  longe  est  a  mortalibu j  mi- 
seriis;  sed  mediator  est  secundum 
quod  homo .”  De  Civ.  Dei,  IX,  15. 
For  additional  Patristic  texts  see 
Petavius,  De  Incarn.,  XII,  1-4; 
Vasquez,  Comment,  in  S.  Theol., 
Ill,  disp.  83,  c.  1. 


2 


12 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


They  had  to  meet  this  logical  difficulty:  The  idea 
of  natural  mediation  essentially  implies  three  distinct  ele¬ 
ments,  viz. :  the  two  extremes  God  and  man,  and  a 
mediator  who  must  be  both  God  and  man,  i.  e.,  God- 
man  (6edv6pa)7ro<s) .  Christ,  being  God  according  to  His 
Divine  Nature,  is  identical  with  the  first  of  these  two 
extremes.  Consequently,  He  cannot  be  a  true  and  nat¬ 
ural  mediator,  for  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  Him  as 
a  go-between  between  Himself  and  man.  Cfr.  Gal. 
Ill,  20:  “A  mediator  is  not  of  one.” 

The  Scholastics  retorted  that  Christ  is  the  mediator 
between  God  and  man  not  qua  Logos,  but  qua  Word 
Incarnate,  i.  e.  as  man.  Cfr.  1  Tim.  II,  5 :  “  One 

mediator  of  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus.”  The 
God  man  Christ  Jesus  is  not  only  numerically  distinct  from 
all  other  men.  He  is  likewise  hypostatically  distinct  from 
the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  being  a  different  Person 
than  either.  Hence  His  mediatorship  involves  three  dis¬ 
tinct  factors:  God,  man,  and  Christ.  It  is  true  that, 
regarded  in  His  Divine  Nature,  as  God,  Christ  is  the 
mediator  between  Himself  and  mankind.  But  his  media¬ 
tion  is  not  effected  by  the  Godhead  as  such,  it  is  effected 
solely  by  His  manhood,  which  is  hypostatically  united 
with  the  Second  Person  of  the  Trinity.  This  gives  rise 
to  seeming  paradoxes,  e.  g.:  As  man  He  adores,  as  God 
He  is  adored;  as  man  He  gives  satisfaction,  as  God  he 
receives  it;  as  man  He  offers  sacrifices,  as  God  He 
accepts  them.  But  this  two-sidedness  does  not  destroy 
the  reality  of  Christ’s  natural  and  moral  mediation.  It 
simply  constitutes  its  substratum.  To  postulate  a  numer¬ 
ical  distinction  between  the  Divine  Nature  of  Christ  and 
the  Godhead  of  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  would  be 
to  base  the  possibility  of  the  atonement  on  Tritheism.22 

22  Cfr.  St.  Thomas,  S.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  26,  art.  2. 


SECTION  2 


CONGRUITY  AND  NECESSITY  OF  THE  REDEMPTION 

I.  Congruity  of  the  Redemption. — Inasmuch  as  an 
end  can  be  best  attained  by  congruous  means,  i.  e.,  means 
specially  adapted  to  that  particular  end,  the  “  congruous  ” 
may  be  said  to  be  “  morally  necessary.”  But  it  is  never 
necessary  in  the  strict  metaphysical  sense  of  the  term. 
Failure  to  employ  a  merely  congruous  means  does  not 
necessarily  frustrate  the  end  to  be  attained;  nor  does  it 
argue  a  moral  fault.  A  wise  man  knows  how  to  attain 
his  ends  by  various  means,  none  of  which  may  be  posi¬ 
tively  “incongruous.”  It  is  in  this  light  that  we  must 
regard  certain  profound  arguments  by  which  Fathers  and 
theologians  have  tried  to  show  the  congruity  of  the  In¬ 
carnation  for  the  purpose  of  Redemption.  Here  are 
the  more  notable  ones. 

a)  God  in  His  exterior  operation  aims  solely 
at  the  manifestation  of  His  attributes  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  His  own  glorification.  What  more  ef¬ 
fective  means  could  He  have  chosen  for  this  end 
than  the  Incarnation? 

In  the  Incarnation  the  seemingly  impossible  was  ef¬ 
fected.  The  Creator  was  inseparably  united  with  the 
creature,  the  Infinite  with  the  finite,  omnipotence  with 

13 


14 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


mercy;  Heaven  and  earth  were  locked  together,  as  it 
were,  by  the  bond  of  the  Hypostatic  Union.  Man  is 
a  microcosm  reflecting  the  whole  created  universe.  No 
doubt  this  is  what  Tertullian  had  in  mind  when  he  wrote: 
“  The  Son  of  God  was  born ;  I  am  not  ashamed,  because 
men  must  needs  be  ashamed  [of  it].  And  the  Son  of 
God  died;  it  is  by  all  means  to  be  believed,  because  it  is 
absurd.  And  after  having  been  buried,  He  rose  again ; 
the  fact  is  certain,  because  it  is  impossible.”  1 

(a)  God’s  justice  and  mercy  are  glorified  in  the  In¬ 
carnation,  because,  despite  their  diametric  contrariety, 
they  both  meet  in  it,  in  such  manner  that  either  attri¬ 
bute  works  itself  out  to  the  full  extent  of  its  infinity 
without  disturbing  the  other.2  When,  moved  by  infinite 
mercy,  the  Son  of  God  satisfied  infinite  justice  by  expiat¬ 
ing  the  sins  of  mankind  on  the  Cross,  “  justice  and  peace 
kissed  ”  in  very  truth.3 

(/ 3 )  God’s  love,  too,  triumphantly  manifested  itself  in 
the  Incarnation  of  the  Logos.  “  God  so  loved  the 
world,  as  to  give  his  only  begotten  Son.”  4  The  mystery 
of  the  Incarnation  gives  the  lie  to  Aristotle,  who  held 
that,  owing  to  the  impassable  gulf  separating  man  from 
God,  anything  like  “friendship  ”  is  impossible  between 
them.  “  Both  he  that  sanctifieth,  and  they  who  are 
sanctified,  are  all  of  one;  for  which  cause  he  is  not 
ashamed  to  call  them  brethren.”  6 

(y)  Divine  wisdom  also  reached  its  climax  in  this 
sublime  mystery.  “  If  any  one  will  diligently  consider 
the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation,”  says  St.  Thomas,  “  he 

1  “  Natus  est  Dei  Filius:  non  2  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  God:  His 
pudet,  quia  pudendum  est;  est  mor-  Knowability,  Essence,  and  Attri - 
tuus  Dei  Filius:  prorsus  credibile,  butes,  pp.  466  sqq.,  St.  Louis  1911. 
quia  ineptum  est;  et  sepultus  resur -  3  Ps.  LXXXIV,  11. 

rexit;  certum  est ,  quia  impossibile.”  4  John  III,  16. 

De  Came  Christi,  c.  5.  5  Heb.  II,  11. 


CONGRUITY  OF  THE  REDEMPTION  15 


will  find  [therein]  a  profundity  of  wisdom  exceeding 
all  human  understanding.  .  .  .  Hence  it  is  that  he  who 
piously  meditates  on  this  mystery,  will  constantly  dis¬ 
cover  [therein]  new  and  more  wonderful  aspects.”  6 

b)  Why  did  the  Second  Person  of  the  Most 
Holy  Trinity  become  incarnate,  rather  than  the 
First  or  the  Third?  There  is  a  profound  reason 
for  this. 


We  have  pointed  out  in  Christology  7  that  nothing  in 
the  personal  traits  of  the  Father  or  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
would  forbid  either  of  these  Divine  Persons  to  assume 
human  flesh.  But  there  is  that  in  the  personal  character 
of  the  Son  which  makes  it  more  appropriate  for  Him 
to  become  incarnate  than  either  the  Father  or  the  Holy 
Ghost.  It  was  through  the  Logos  that  the  universe  was 
created ; 8  and  what  is  more  fitting  than  that  it  should 
also  be  repaired  by  His  agency?9  Moreover,  as  the 
Logos  alone  is  “  the  [perfect]  image  of  God,”  10  it  was 
highly  appropriate  that  He  should  restore  to  its  pristine 
purity  God’s  likeness  in  men,  which  had  been  destroyed 
by  sin.11  “  The  Divine  Logos  Himself  came  into  this 
world,”  says  St.  Athanasius,  “  in  order  that,  being  the 
image  of  the  Father,  He  might  restore  man,  who  was 
created  to  His  image  and  likeness.” 12  It  also  befit- 


6  “  Si  quis  autem  diligenter  incar- 

nationis  mysterium  consideret,  in- 
veniet  tantam  sapientiae  profundita- 
tem,  quod  omneni  humanam  cogni- 
tionem  excedat.  .  .  .  Unde  fit,  ut 
pie  consideranti  semper  magis  ac 
magis  admirabiles  rationes  huiusmodi 
mysterii  manif  e  stent  ur.”  Contr. 

Gent.,  IV,  54. 

7  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology ,  pp. 

J35  sq. 


8  Cfr.  John  I,  3. 

9  Pope  St.  Leo  the  Great  says: 
“.  .  .  ut,  quoniam  ipse  est,  per  quern 
omnia  facta  sunt  et  sine  quo  factum 
est  nihil,  .  .  .  cuius  erat  conditor, 
etiam  esset  reformator.”  ( Serm.t 
64,  Migne,  P.  L.,  LIX,  358.) 

,10  Cfr.  2  Cor.  IV,  4. 

11  Cfr.  Gen.  I,  26. 

12  Or.  de  Incarn.  Verbi,  13. 


!l6 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


ted  the  hypostatic  character  of  the  Son  of  God  that, 
as  the  true  son  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  He  should  become  the 
“  Son  of  man,”  in  order  to  reconstitute  all  men  “  sons 
of  God  ”  as  by  a  new  birth.13  The  second  of  these 
momenta  is  well  brought  out  by  St.  Augustine  when  he 
says :  “  That  men  might  be  born  of  God,  God  was  first 

born  of  them.  For  .  .  .  He  through  whom  we  were 
to  be  created,  was  born  of  God,  and  He  by  whom  we 
were  to  be  re-created,  was  born  of  a  woman.”  14  St. 
John  of  Damascus  emphasizes  the  first-mentioned  point 
when  he  observes :  “  The  Son  of  God  also  became  the 

son  of  man;  He  took  flesh  from  the  Blessed  Virgin,  but 
did  not  cease  to  be  the  Son  of  God.” 15 


c)  It  strikes  us  as  an  admirable  manifestation 
of  divine  wisdom  that  the  Son  of  God  assumed 
human  nature  rather  than  that  of  the  angels. 
Heb.  II,  16:  “Niisqnam  enim  angelos  appre- 
hendit,  sed  semen  Abrahae  apprehendit 16 —  For 
nowhere  doth  he  take  hold  of  the  angels:  but  of 
the  seed  of  Abraham  he  taketh  hold.” 


By  assuming  flesh,  the  Son  of  God  wished  to  recon¬ 
struct  human  nature  upon  its  own  foundations  and  to 
propose  to  man  for  his  imitation  a  pattern  exemplar  in 
the  “  Following  of  Christ,” — neither  of  which  objects 
could  have  been  attained  had  the  Divine  Logos  assumed 
the  nature  of  an  angel. 


13  Cfr.  John  I,  12;  Gal.  IV,  4  sq. 

14 "  Ut  homines  nascerentur  ex 
Deo,  primo  ex  ipsis  natus  est  Deus. 
Christus  enim  .  .  .  natus  ex  Deo, 
per  quem  efficeremur,  et  natus  ex 
femina,  per  quem  reficeremur 
Tract,  in  loa.,  2,  n.  15. 


15  “  Filius  Dei  etiam  filius  ho  minis 
fit,  qui  ex  s.  virgine  incarnatus  est, 
nec  tamen  a  filiali  proprietate  disces- 
sit.”  De  Trinitate,  1. —  Cfr.  St. 
Thomas,  5.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  3,  art.  8, 

16  iTuXafi^aveTai, 


CONGRUITY  OF  THE  REDEMPTION  17 


One  of  the  most  telling  reasons  why  it  was  more  ap¬ 
propriate  for  the  Son  of  God  to  assume  the  nature  of 
man  than  that  of  the  angels  17  is  that  none  but  a  God- 
man  could  endow  the  created  universe  with  the  highest 
degree  of  perfection  of  which  it  was  capable.  By  the 
hypostatic  incorporation  into  the  Godhead  of  a  nature 
composed  of  a  material  body  and  a  spiritual  soul,  the 
physical  universe  was  linked  with  the  realm  of  pure 
spirits.  “  In  no  other  way,”  says  Lessius,  “  could  the 
whole  universe  have  been  so  appropriately  perfected  .  .  . 
for  by  the  assumption  of  man  the  whole  universe  was 
after  a  fashion  assumed  into  and  united  with  the  God¬ 
head.”  18  Thus  Christ  is  in  very  deed  both  the  natural 
and  the  supernatural  keystone  of  the  cosmos,  the  be¬ 
ginning  and  the  end  of  all  things,  the  pivot  of  the 
universe.  Cfr.  1  Cor.  Ill,  22 :  “  Omnia  enim  vestra 

sunt  .  .  .  vos  autem  Christi,  Christus  autem  Dei  —  For 
all  things  are  yours,  .  .  .  and  you  are  Christ’s,  and 
Christ  is  God’s.” 

d)  It  is  a  further  proof  of  divine  wisdom  that 
the  Son  of  God  chose  to  come  into  this  world  as 
the  child  of  a  virgin  rather  than  as  a  full-grown 
man. 

A  sweet  infant  is  more  apt  to  win  our  affection  than 
a  mature  man.  The  virgin  birth  represented  the  real¬ 
ization  of  the  last  of  the  four  possible  modes  in  which 
a  human  being  can  come  into  existence.  Three  of  these 
had  already  been  realized  in  Adam,  Eve,  and  their  de¬ 
scendants.  Adam  was  created  immediately  by  God  ( sine 

17  On  the  possibility  of  the  18  De  Perfect .  Moribusque  Divinis , 
Logos’  assuming  the  nature  of  an  XII,  4, 
angel,  see  Suarez,  De  Incarn.,  disp. 

14,  sect.  3, 


i8 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


mare  et  femina)  ;  Eve  sprang  from  the  male  without  fe* 
male  cooperation  (ex  mare  sine  femina)  ;  their  descend¬ 
ants  are  propagated  by  sexual  generation  (ex  mare  et 
femina)  ;  Jesus  Christ  alone  originated  from  a  woman 
without  male  co-operation  (ex  femina  sine  mare).  This 
fact  guarantees  the  reality  and  integrity  of  our  Lord’s 
human  nature,  as  has  been  shown  in  Christology.19 

By  His  incorporation  into  the  race  of  the  “  first 
Adam,”  our  Blessed  Redeemer  became  the  “  second 
Adam  ” 20  in  a  far  higher  sense  than  if  He  had  appeared 
on  earth  in  a  celestial  body.  There  is  a  similar  an¬ 
tithesis  between  Eve  and  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary.  In 
Christ  the  male  was  elevated,  ennobled,  and  consecrated ; 
in  Mary,  the  female.  “  He  did  not  despise  the  male,”  says 
St.  Augustine,  “  for  he  assumed  the  nature  of  a  man, 
nor  the  female,  for  he  was  born  of  a  woman.”  21 


2.  Necessity  of  the  Redemption. — Neces¬ 
sity  is  twofold:  absolute  or  hypothetical.  The 
latter  may  be  subdivided  into  a  number  of  special 
varieties.  Hence  in  treating  of  the  necessity  of 
the  Redemption  we  shall  have  to  distinguish 
between  several  hypotheses. 

a)  Wyclif  asserted  that  the  Redemption  was 
an  absolute  necessity.  This  proposition  is  un¬ 
tenable.22 


19  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology,  pp. 
41  sqq. 

20  Cfr.  Rom.  V,  14  sqq.;  1  Cor. 
XV,  45- 

21  ”  Nec  mares  fastidivit,  quia 
marem  suscepit;  nec  feminam,  quia 
ae  femina  factus  est.”  Ep.,  3.  On 
the  propriety  of  Christ’s  becom¬ 
ing  incarnate  at  the  particular 
time  when  He  was  conceived  by  the 


Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  cfr.  Saint 
Thomas,  5.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  1,  art.  5- 
6. —  On  the  whole  subject  of  this 
subdivision  cfr.  De  Lugo,  De  Myst. 
Incarn.,  disp.  1,  sect.  2;  Suarez,  De 
Incarn.,  disp.  3,  sect.  3;  Chr.  Pesch, 
Praelect.  Dogmat.,  Vol.  IV,  3rd  ed., 
pp.  209  sqq. 

22  Cfr.  Denzinger-Bannwart,  Eh* 
chiridion,  n,  607. 


NECESSITY  OF  THE  REDEMPTION  19 


Whatever  is  absolutely  necessary  involves  the  same 
kind  of  certainty  as  that  two  and  two  are  four.  To  as¬ 
cribe  such  mathematical  necessity  to  the  Incarnation 
would  be  to  deny  the  liberty  of  the  Redemption  as  well 
as  that  of  the  Creation,  for  the  creation  of  the  world  was 
an  indispensable  condition  of  the  Incarnation.  Further¬ 
more,  Revelation  clearly  teaches  that  the  Redemption  of 
the  human  race  was  in  the  strictest  and  most  perfect  sense 
of  the  word  a  work  of  divine  grace,  mercy,  and  love. 
Wyclif  is  wrong  in  holding  that  the  Incarnation  satisfies 
a  legitimate  demand  of  human  nature,  for  in  that 
hypothesis  reason  would  be  able  to  demonstrate  with 
mathematical  certainty  the  possibility  and  existence  of 
the  Hypostatic  Union,  which  we  know  is  not  the  case. 
So  far  is  the  human  mind  from  being  able  to  understand 
this  mystery,  th'at  it  cannot  even  demonstrate  it  after  it 
has  been  revealed.23  Hence  the  Incarnation,  if  it  was  at 
all  necessary,  could  be  necessary  only  in  an  hypothetic 
sense,  that  is,  on  some  condition  or  other.  What  may 
this  condition  be? 

b)  Raymond  Lull,  Malebranche,  Leibniz,  and 
other  champions  of  absolute  Optimism  contend 
that  when  God  determined  to  create  the  universe, 
He  of  necessity  also  decreed  the  Incarnation,  be¬ 
cause  it  is  inconceivable  that  He  should  have 
wished  to  deprive  His  work  of  its  highest  per¬ 
fection.  In  other  words,  the  concept  of  “the 
best  possible  world”  includes  the  Incarnation. 

This  theory,  which  destroys  the  liberty  of  the  Creator, 
is  refuted  in  our  dogmatic  treatise  on  God  the  Author 

23  Cf rf  Pohle^Preuss,  Christology,  pp.  45  sq. 


20 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


of  Nature ,24  Here  we  merely  wish  to  point  out  two 
facts:  that  the  Creator  Himself,  without  regard  to  the 
future  Incarnation,  described  His  work  as  “  very 
good,” 25  and  that  the  Incarnation  would  not  be  pre¬ 
eminently  a  free  grace  if  it  corresponded  to  a  strict 
claim  of  nature. 

The  champions  of  moderate  or  relative  Optimism 26 
maintain  that  the  present  order,  capped  by  the  Incarna¬ 
tion,  represents  the  “  best  possible  world,”  not  because 
the  Incarnation  was  a  metaphysical  necessity,  but  because 
it  was  morally  necessary  in  view  of  God’s  superabundant 
goodness.  These  writers  forget  that,  while  the  Incarna¬ 
tion  represents  the  apogee  of  divine  glorification  and  the 
highest  perfection  of  the  universe,  it  involves  at  the  same 
time  an  equally  great  humiliation  and  self-abasement  (ex- 
inanitio ,  KeWns)  of  God’s  Majesty,  which  is  inconceivable 
in  any  other  hypothesis  except  as  a  free  decree  of  His 
love.27 

c)  The  further  question  arises :  Did  God  owe 
it  to  fallen  man  to  redeem  him  by  means  of  the 
Incarnation  ?  The  answer  is  that  the  restoration 
of  the  state  of  grace  which  man  had  enjoyed  in 
Paradise  was  just  as  truly  a  free  gift  of  God’s 
mercy  and  benevolence  as  that  state  itself,  nay, 
even  more  so. 

That  God  was  under  no  obligation  to  redeem  His 
creatures  is  evidenced  by  the  fate  of  the  fallen  angels. 
Cfr.  also  Wisd.  XII,  12:  “  Quis  tibi  imputabit,  si  peri- 

24  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  God  the  Au •  Dei,  disp.  9),  Sylvester  Maurus  ( De 

thor  of  Nature  and  the  Supernatural,  Deo,  disp.  51),  and  Viva  (De  In- 
pp.  45  sq.  cam.,  qu.  2,  art.  2). 

25  Gen.  I,  31.  27  Cfr.  De  Lugo,  De  Myst .  Incarn., 

26  E.  g.,  Didacus  Kuiz  (De  Volunt.  disp.  2,  sect.  1-2. 


NECESSITY  OF  THE  REDEMPTION  21 


erint  nationes,  quas  tu  fecistif  —  Who  shall  accuse  thee, 
if  the  nations  perish,  which  thou  hast  made?”  St. 
Augustine  may  have  held  harsh  and  exaggerated  views 
on  the  subject  of  predestination,  but  he  was  certainly 
right  when  he  said :  “  The  entire  mass  incurred  pen¬ 

alty;  and  if  the  deserved  punishment  of  condemnation 
were  rendered  to  all,  it  would  without  doubt  be  right¬ 
eously  rendered.”  28 

To  say  that  the  Incarnation,  though  the  result  of  a  free 
decree,  was  the  only  means  God  had  of  redeeming  the 
human  race,29  would  be  unduly  to  restrict  the  divine  attri¬ 
butes  of  mercy,  wisdom,  and  omnipotence  in  their  essence 
and  scope.30  God  might,  without  injustice,  have  left  the 
human  race  to  perish  in  its  iniquity,  and  there  is  nothing 
repugnant  either  to  faith  or  right  reason  in  the  assump¬ 
tion  that  He  might,  with  or  without  the  intervention  of 
some  appointed  saint  or  angel  as  representative  of  the 


28  "  Universa  tnassa  poenas  dabat, 
et  si  omnibus  damnationis  supplicium 
redderetur,  non  iniuste  procul  dubio 
redderetur.”  ( De  Nat.  et  Grat.,  c. 
5.) 

29  This  opinion  was  held  by  St. 
Anselm  ( Cur  Deus  Homo?  I,  4;  II, 
12),  Richard  of  St.  Victor  (De  In- 
earn.  Verbi,  c.  8),  and  Tournely  (De 
Deo,  qu.  19,  art.  1;  De  Incarn.,  qu. 
4  sqq.).  It  is  absolutely  without 
Scriptural  warrant.  De  Lugo  says  of 
it:  “  Mihi  videtur  satis  ad  errorem 
accedere,  eo  quod,  licet  non  omnino 
clare ,  fere  tamen  clare  ex  Scriptura 
colligatur  oppositum,  accedente  prae- 
sertim  expositione  communi  Pa- 
trum  (Op.  cit.,  disp.  2,  sect.  1, 
n.  6).  Lately  an  attempt  has  been 
made  to  interpret  St.  Anselm’s 
opinion  more  mildly  (Dorholt,  Die 
Lehre  von  der  Genugtuung  Christi, 
pp.  201  sqq.,  Paderborn  1891). 
For  a  criticism  of  Dorholt’s  po¬ 


sition  see  Stentrup  in  the  Zeit- 
schrift  fiir  katholische  Theologie, 
pp.  653  sqq.,  Innsbruck  1892.  B. 
Funke,  Grundlagen  und  Voraussete- 
ungen  der  Satisfaktionstheorie  des 
hi.  Anselm ,  Munster  1903,  furnishes 
a  notable  contribution  in  support  of 
Dorholt’s  thesis.  Cfr.  also  L.  Hein¬ 
richs,  Genugtuungstheorie  des  hi. 
Anselmus,  Paderborn  1909;  and 
Pohle-Preuss,  God:  His  Knowability, 
Essence ,  and  Attributes,  pp.  462 
sqq. 

30  “  Sunt  stulti  qui  dicunt :  Non 
poterat  aliter  sapientia  Dei  homines 
liberare,  nisi  susciperet  hominem  et 
nasceretur  de  femina.  .  .  .  Quibus 
dicimus:  Poterat  omnino,  sed  si 
aliter  faceret,  similiter  vestrae  stulti- 
tiae  displiceret.”  (St.  Augustine, 
De  Agone  Christi,  XI,  12).  For 
other  Patristic  texts  consult  Peta- 
▼ius,  De  Incarn.,  II,  13. 


i22 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


whole  race,  have  restored  penitent  sinners  to  His  grace 
without  demanding  any  equivalent  whatever,  or  on  the 
basis  of  an  inadequate  satisfaction.  Hence,  according  to 
Suarez,31  the  universal  teaching  of  theologians  that  God 
in  His  omnipotence  might  have  repaired  human  nature 
in  a  variety  of  other  ways,32  is  so  certain  that  “  it  cannot 
be  denied  without  temerity  and  danger  to  the  faith.” 

d)  The  Incarnation  can  be  conceived  as  a 
necessary  postulate  of  the  Redemption  only  on  the 
assumption  that  God  exacted  adequate  (i.  e.y  in¬ 
finite)  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  men.  In  that 
hypothesis  manifestly  none  but  a  natural  media¬ 
tor,  that  is  to  say,  a  Godman,  was  able  to  give  the 
satisfaction  demanded. 


Sin  involves  a  sort  of  infinite  guilt  and  cannot  be 
adequately  atoned  for  except  by  an  infinite  satisfac¬ 
tion.33  The  Fathers  held  that  not  even  the  human 
nature  of  Christ,  as  such,  considered  apart  from  the 
Hypostatic  Union,  could  make  adequate  satisfaction  for 
our  sins ;  much  less,  of  course,  was  any  other  creature, 
human  or  angelic,  equal  to  the  task.  For,  in  the  words 
of  St.  Augustine,  “  we  could  not  be  redeemed,  even  by 
the  one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  if  He  were  not  also  God.”  34 
Though  this  was  the  most  difficult  mode  of  redemption, 


31  De  Incarn.,  disp.  4,  sect.  2,  n.  3. 

32  Cfr.  St.  Thomas,  51.  Theol.,  3a, 

qu.  1,  art.  2:  “  Dens  per  suam 

omnipotent em  virtutem  poterat  hu- 
manam  naturam  mnltis  aliis  modis 
reparare.” 

33  Cfr.  St.  Thomas,  5".  Theol.,  3a, 
qu.  2,  ad  2, 


34  St.  Augustine,  Enchir.,  c.  108: 
“  Neque  per  ipsum  liberaremur  unum 
mediatorem  Dei  et  hominum,  homi- 
neni  Iesum  Christum,  nisi  esset  et 
Deus.” —  For  additional  texts  from 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers  consult 
Vasquez,  disp.  4,  c.  3;  Thomassin, 
De  Incarn.,  I,  4, 


NECESSITY  OF  THE  REDEMPTION  23 


it  was  the  one  actually  chosen  by  God.  The  Incarnation 
of  the  Logos  satisfied  the  full  rigor  of  His  justice,  but  it 
also  gave  free  play  to  His  boundless  love.  The  fact  that 
the  atonement  was  decreed  from  eternity  explains  such 
Scriptural  phrases  as  John  III,  14:  “  Exalt ari  oportet 35 

Filium  hominis  —  The  Son  of  man  must  be  lifted  up  ” 
(as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  desert),  and  Luke 
XXIV,  26:  “  Nonne  haec  oportuit  patiZQ  Christum  — 
Was  it  not  necessary  for  Christ  to  have  suffered  these 
things  ?  ” 37 


35  v\f/o$rjvcu  del . 

36  %dei  iraQelv . 

37  Cfr.  Heb.  IX,  22. —  On  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  the  foregoing  paragraphs  con¬ 
sult  J.  Kleutgen,  Theologie  der  V  or- 
zeit,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  336  sqq.,  381  sqq., 
430  sqq.,  Munster  1870;  Chr.  Pesch, 


Praelectiones  Dogmaticae,  Vol.  IV, 
3rd  ed.,  pp.  201  sqq.,  Friburgi  1909; 
De  Lugo,  De  Myst.  Incarn.,  disp.  2, 
3,  5;  Billuart,  De  Incarn.,  diss.  3, 
art.  2;  B.  Dorholt,  Die  Lehre  von 
der  Genugtuung  Christi,  pp.  171  sqq., 
Paderborn  1891. 


SECTION  3 


PREDESTINATION  OF  THE  REDEEMER 

i.  State  of  the  Question. — Would  the  Son 
of  God  have  appeared  in  the  flesh  if  Adam  had  not 
sinned?  In  other  words,  was  the  Incarnation 
absolutely  predetermined?  This  is  a  most  inter¬ 
esting  question,  and  the  famous  theological  con¬ 
troversy  to  which  it  gave  rise,  throws  so  clear  a 
light  on  the  dogma  of  the  Redemption  and  the 
sublime  dignity  of  the  Redeemer,  that  we  must 
give  an  account  of  it  here. 

The  underlying  problem  may  be  briefly  stated 
as  follows:  The  Incarnation  was  dictated  by 
two  principal  motives,  namely,  ( i )  compassion 
for  the  misery  of  mankind,  and  (2)  the  glorifi¬ 
cation  of  God  and  His  Christ.1  Which  of  these 
motives  outweighed  the  other?  This  question 
must  receive  an  answer  before  we  can  determine 
whether  the  fall  of  Adam  was  an  indispensable 
condition  of  the  Incarnation,  or  whether  the  Di¬ 
vine  Logos  assumed  human  flesh  irrespective  of 
the  existence  or  non-existence  of  a  sinful  race  of 

1  Cfr.  John  XVII,  4  sqq.;  2  Thess.  I,  12. 

24 


PREDESTINATION  OF  THE  REDEEMER  25 

men.  The  former  view  is  held  by  the  Thomists, 
the  latter  by  the  Scotists. 

The  Scotists  conceive  the  divine  decrees  appertaining 
to  the  Redemption  in  the  following  order.  First  of  all 
comes  the  absolute  predistination  of  Christ  and  His 
divine  kingdom,  consisting  of  angels  and  men.  In  the 
second  place,  the  permission  of  the  sin  of  Adam ;  and  in 
the  third  place,  the  mission  of  Christ  in  His  capacity  of 
passible  Redeemer. 

The  Thomists,  on  the  other  hand,  hold  that  God  created 
the  universe  without  regard  to  Christ;  that  He  subse¬ 
quently  decreed  to  permit  sin,  and  lastly  determined  on 
the  Incarnation  of  the  Logos  for  the  purpose  of  redeem¬ 
ing  the  human  race. 

As  may  be  seen  from  this  enumeration,  the  Scotists 
put  the  Incarnation  first,  while  the  Thomists  put  it  last. 
From  the  Scotist  point  of  view  God’s  predominant  mo¬ 
tive  in  decreeing  the  Incarnation  was  the  dignity  and 
glorification  of  Christ.  The  universe  was  created  for 
Christ’s  sake.  The  Thomists,  on  the  other  hand,  ascribe 
the  Incarnation  of  the  Logos  primarily  to  God’s  mercy. 
In  the  Scotist  hypothesis  the  Incarnation  is  altogether 
independent  of  the  Fall;  the  Thomists  regard  the  latter 
as  an  indispensable  condition  of  the  former. 

Against  the  Scotist  view  there  lies  this  objection:  If 
Christ  was  not  predestined  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  men, 
why  did  He  appear  on  earth  as  a  passible  Redeemer  rather 
than,  as  we  should  have  every  reason  to  expect,  in  the 
capacity  of  an  impassible,  glorified  Godman  ?  The 
Scotists  meet  this  difficulty  by  saying  that  the  first  and 
absolute  decree  touching  the  Incarnation  was  modified  in 
view  of  the  Fall ;  that  after  the  Fall,  Christ,  who  originally 


26 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


was  to  have  appeared  among  men  as  homo  gloriosus ,  de¬ 
cided  to  assume  human  flesh  and  become  homo  passibilis. 

In  general  terms  the  two  theories  may  be  characterized 
as  follows:  The  Scotistic  theory  is  inspired  by  a  tran¬ 
scendent  idealism,  whereas  the  Thomist  view  conforms 
to  the  facts  as  we  know  them.  To  enable  the  reader  to 
form  his  own  estimate  we  will  briefly  state  the  leading 
arguments  adduced  by  both  schools. 


2.  The  Thomistic  Theory. — That  the  Fall 
of  Adam  was  the  chief  motive  which  prompted 
God  to  decree  the  Incarnation,  is  held  by  all 
Thomists,2 3  and  also  by  a  large  number  of  theo¬ 
logians  belonging  to  other  schools,  e.  g.,  Gregory 
of  Valentia,  Vasquez,  Petavius,  Cardinals  To- 
letus  and  De  Lugo,  and  even  by  the  “ideal” 
Lessius.8  Among  modern  theologians  this  the¬ 
ory  has  been  espoused  by  Kleutgen,4  Stentrup,5 
Tepe,6  and  many  others. 


Toletus  and  Petavius  absolutely  reject  the  Scotist 
hypothesis.  Chr.  Pesch 7  and  L.  Janssens 8  prefer  the 
Thomist  view,  but  admit  the  other  as  probable.  In  this 
they  follow  St.  Thomas  himself  9  and  St.  Bonaventure.10 
The  Angelic  Doctor  both  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Liber 
Sententiarum  and  in  the  Summa  Theologica  expresses 


2  Cfr.  Billuart,  De  Incarn.,  diss. 
3,  art.  3. 

3  De  Praedest.  Christi  (Opusc.,  t. 
II,  pp.  483  sqq.,  Paris  1878). 

4  Theologie  der  Vorzeit,  Vol.  Ill, 

PP-  393  sqq. 

5  Soteriologia,  thes.  2. 

6  Instit.  Theol.,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  663 

sqq.,  Paris  1896. 


7  Praelect.  Dogm.,  Vol.  IV,  3d  ed., 
pp.  216  sqq. 

8  De  Deo-Homine,  II :  Soteriologia, 
pp.  44  sqq. 

9  Comment,  in  Quatuor  Libros 
Sent.,  Ill,  dist.  1,  qu.  1,  art.  3. 

10  Comment,  in  Quatuor  Libros 
Sent.,  Ill,  dist.  1,  art.  2,  qu.  2. 


THE  THOMISTIC  THEORY 


27 


himself  with  cautious  reserve.  St.  Bonaventure  says: 
“  He  who  was  made  flesh  for  us  alone  knows  which  of 
the  two  theories  is  the  better.  Which  is  to  be  preferred 
it  is  difficult  to  say,  because  both  are  Catholic  and 
sustained  by  Catholic  authors.”  11 

The  Thomistic  conception  is  based  upon  arguments 
which,  though  not  cogent,  are  perfectly  sound. 

a)  St.  Thomas  himself  argues  as  follows: 
“Some  claim  that  the  Son  of  God  would  have 
assumed  human  flesh  even  if  man  had  not  sinned. 
Others  assert  the  contrary,  and  their  teaching 
seems  to  have  a  greater  claim  to  our  assent. 
The  reason  is  this.  Whatever  proceeds  solely 
from  the  Divine  Will,  transcending  every  exi¬ 
gency  of  nature,  must  remain  unknown  to  us, 
except  it  be  revealed  by  Sacred  Scripture.  .  .  . 
Now,  Sacred  Scripture  invariably  assigns  the  sin 
of  Adam  as  the  motive  of  the  Incarnation.  It  is 
more  befitting,  therefore,  to  regard  the  Incarna¬ 
tion  as  ordained  by  God  for  the  cure  of  sin,  so 
that  if  there  had  been  no  sin  there  would  have 
been  no  Incarnation/' 12 


As  a  matter  of  fact,  whenever  Sacred  Scripture  speaks 
of  the  motive  of  the  Incarnation,  it  invariably  points  to 


11 1.  c. 

12  5'.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  i,  art.  3: 
"  Quidam  dicunt,  quod  etiamsi  homo 
non  peccasset,  Dei  Filius  incarnatus 
fuisset .  Alii  vero  contrarium  as - 
serunt,  quorum  assertioni  magis  as- 
sentiendum  videtur.  Ea  enim  quae 
a  sola  Dei  voluntate  proveniunt 
supra  omne  debitum  naturae,  nobis 


innotescere  non  possunt,  nisi  qua- 
tenus  in  S.  Scriptura  traduntur.  .  .  . 
Unde  quum  in  S.  Scriptura  ubique 
incarnationis  ratio  ex  peccato  primi 
hominis  assignetur,  convenientius 
dicitur ,  incarnationem  opus  ordina- 
turn  esse  a  Deo  in  remedium  contra 
peccatum,  ita  quod  peccato  non  exi¬ 
st  ente  incar natio  non  fuisset 


28 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


the  sin  of  Adam.  It  is  because  He  was  sent  to  redeem 
the  fallen  race  of  men  that  Christ  received  the  name  of 
“Jesus,”  i.  e.,  Saviour  or  Redeemer  ( salvator ,  o-wrr/p). 
Cfr.  Matth.  I,  21 :  “  Et  vocabis  nomen  eius  Iesum;  ipse 
enim 13  salvum  faciet  populum  suum  a  peccatis  eorum 
—  And  thou  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus;  for  he  shall  save 
his  people  from  their  sins.”  14  Jesus  Himself  never  even 
hints  at  any  other  motive.  Cfr.  Luke  XIX,  10: 
(t  Venit  enim  Filins  hominis  quaerere  et  salvum  facere, 
quod  perierat  —  For  the  Son  of  man  is  come  to  seek 
and  to  save  that  which  was  lost.”  It  seems  perfectly 
legitimate  to  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  redemption  of 
man  was  the  main  motive  which  prompted  God  to  send 
His  Son.  Had  there  been  a  higher  and  more  com¬ 
prehensive  motive,  it  would  be  strange  to  find  no  hint 
of  it  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  weight  of  this  argument  must  not,  however,  be 
overrated.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  texts  upon  which 
it  is  based  are  purely  affirmative,  but  not  exclusive,  so 
that  the  argument  based  upon  them  is  at  bottom  merely 
one  ex  silentio.  And,  secondly,  the  Scriptural  passages 
in  question  all  refer  to  the  actual  order  of  salvation, 
not  to  its  hidden  background.  Although  the  Incarna¬ 
tion  and  the  Redemption  are  causally  correlated,  Sacred 
Scripture  does  not  define  the  nature  of  their  mutual 
relationship,  and  tells  us  nothing  at  all  concerning  the 
question  whether  the  Incarnation  is  subordinate  to  the 
Redemption,  or  vice  versa. 

b)  Owing  to  their  larger  knowledge  of  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers,  modern  theologians  are 

13  ydp,  Rom.  Ill,  25;  Gal.  IV,  4;  1  Tim. 

14  Similarly  Matth.  IX,  13;  Mark  I,  15;  1  John  III,  5. 

II,  17;  Luke  I,  31;  John  III,  17; 


THE  THOMISTIC  THEORY 


29 


able  to  construct  a  far  more  convincing  Patristic 
argument  than  was  possible  in  the  time  of  St. 
Thomas.  Holy  Scripture  merely  intimates  by  its 
silence  that  there  would  have  been  no  Incarnation 
if  Adam  had  not  sinned.  The  Fathers  enunciate 
this  proposition  in  explicit  terms. 

“  I  am  persuaded,”  writes  Cardinal  Toletus,  “  that,  had 
the  old  Scholastic  doctors  been  acquainted  with  the  many 
Patristic  testimonials  which  I  now  adduce,  they  would 
have  admitted  that  the  contrary  view  is  absolutely  de¬ 
void  of  probability.”  15  We  will  cite  a  few  of  these  tes¬ 
timonials.  St.  Athanasius  says :  “  The  assumption  of 

human  nature  [on  the  part  of  the  Logos]  presupposes  a 
necessity,  apart  from  which  He  would  not  have  put  on 
flesh.”  16  St.  Ambrose  asks :  “  What  was  the  cause  of 
the  Incarnation  if  not  this,  that  the  flesh  which  had  sinned 
by  itself,  should  by  itself  be  redeemed?”17  And  St. 
Augustine  declares  that  “  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  came  in 
the  flesh  .  .  .  for  no  other  reason  than  ...  to  save, 
liberate,  redeem,  and  enlighten  [those  who  are  engrafted 
members  of  His  body].”18  We  may  also  refer  to  the 
Creed :  “  Who  for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation  de¬ 
scended  from  Heaven,”  and  to  the  Easter  hymn :  “  O 

happy  fault,  which  deserved  to  have  so  great  and  glorious 
a  Redeemer !  ” 

To  sum  up  the  argument:  Tradition,  so  far  as  we 

15  In  S.  Theol.,  h.  1.  per  se  redimeretur?  ”  De  Incarn., 

16  Or.  contr.  Arian.,  2,  54.  Sim-  c.  6,  n.  56. 

ilarly  Gregory  of  Naziauzus  (Or.,  18  De  Pecc.  Mer.  et  Rem.,  I,  26, 

30,  n.  3)  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  39. —  Additional  Patristic  texts  in 
( Thesaur .,  V,  8).  Lessius,  De  Praedest.  Christi,  sect. 

17  ”  Quae  erat  causa  incarnationis,  1,  n.  5;  Stentrup,  Soteriologia,  thes. 
nisi  ut  caro,  quae  per  se  peccaverat,  1  sq.  Cfr.  Petavius,  De  Incarn 

II.  17. 


30 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


are  able  to  ascertain  it,  is  against  the  absolute  predesti¬ 
nation  of  Christ,  but  holds  that,  if  man  had  not  sinned, 

the  Son  of  God  would  never  have  become  incarnate. 

$ 

To  escape  this  argument,  the  Scotists  urge  their  above- 
mentioned  distinction  between  "  Christus  gloriosus  ”  and 
“  Christus  passibilis.”  God’s  original  decree  concerning 
the  Incarnation,  they  say,  was  from  all  eternity  mod¬ 
ified  by  the  Fall  of  man,  which  necessitated  a  pas¬ 
sible  redeemer;  and  it  is  to  this  particular  aspect  of 
the  Incarnation  alone  that  the  Patristic  texts  apply;  at 
least  it  is  possible  so  to  interpret  them.  But  even  if 
they  could  be  interpreted  in  the  wider  sense  in  which  they 
are  understood  by  the  Thomists,  we  should  still  be  dealing 
with  a  mere  theory,  which  no  rule  of  faith  constrains  us 
to  adopt.  In  support  of  this  view  the  Scotist  theologians 
point  to  the  modification  which  the  Patristic  theory  of 
“  satisfaction  ”  has  experienced  in  course  of  time  with¬ 
out  detriment  to  its  substance. 

3.  The  Scotistic  Theory. — If  the  question 
at  issue  had  to  be  decided  purely  on  the  author¬ 
ity  of  theologians,  we  should  be  unable  to  arrive 
at  a  unanimous  decision,  so  evenly  is  authority 
balanced  against  authority.  The  Scotistic  theory 
originated  with  Abbot  Rupert  of  Deutz.19  It 
was  adopted  by  Albert  the  Great 20  and  developed 
by  Duns  Scotus,21  in  whose  school  it  eventually 
obtained  the  upper  hand.22  It  has  also  found 
many  ardent  defenders  outside  the  Scotistic 

19  De  Gloria  et  Hon.  Filii  Hominis  21  Comment,  in  Quatuor  Libros 

Libri  XIII;  De  Trinit.,  Ill,  20.  Sent.,  Ill,  dist.  7,  qu.  3. 

20  Comment,  in  Quatuor  Libros  22  Cfr.  Mastrius,  Disp.  Theol., 

Sent.,  Ill,  dist.  20,  art.  4.  disp.  4,  qu.  1. 


THE  SCOTISTIC  THEORY 


3i 


camp,  among  them  Ambrose  Catharinus,23  Ysam- 
bert,  St.  Bernard  of  Siena,  St.  Francis  de  Sales,24 
and  especially  Suarez.25  For  a  while  its  defend¬ 
ers  were  few,  but  of  late  the  theory  is  again  com¬ 
ing  into  favor.  Among  its  modern  champions  we 
may  mention:  Faber,  Gay,  Bougaud,  Schell, 
Fr.  Risi,  and  Du  Cappucce.26 

The  arguments  for  the  Scotist  position  are  un¬ 
deniably  strong. 

a)  Their  Scriptural  basis  is  the  oft-repeated 
statement  of  St.  Paul  that  the  Incarnation  of 
Christ  was  pre-ordained  by  an  eternal  and  abso¬ 
lute  divine  decree  without  regard  to  the  Fall. 

The  Apostle  declares  that  all  things  are  by  Christ  and 
for  Christ,  i.  e.,  tend  towards  Him  as  their  final  end  and 
object.  Cfr.  Heb.  II,  10:  “Propter  qnem  omnia  et 
per  quern  omnia  —  For  whom  are  all  things  and  by 
whom  are  all  things.”  27  Col.  I,  16  sqq. :  “  Omnia  per 

ipsum  et  in  ipso 28  creata  sunt  .  .  .  et  ipse  est  ante 
omnes29  et  omnia  in  ipso  constant ;  et  ipse  est  caput 
corporis  Ecclesiae,  qui  est  principium ,30  primogenitus  ex 
mortuis,  ut  sit  in  omnibus  ipse  primatum  tenens  31  —  In 
him  were  all  things  created  .  .  .  and  he  is  before  all, 
and  by  him  all  things  consist.  And  he  is  the  head  of 
the  body,  the  church,  who  is  the  beginning,  the  first¬ 
born  from  the  dead;  that  in  all  things  he  may  hold  the 

23  De  Praedestin .  Eximia  Christi ,  27  fid  fiy  -j-a  ttclutcL  kclI  $t ’  oi  T& 

Lugduni  1542.  iravra. 

24  De  V Amour  de  Dieu,  II,  4.  28  e/s  a vtov. 

25  De  Incarn.,  disp.  5.  29  7^  -jrdvrtav, 

26  Etudes  Frartciscaines,  1890,  30  dpxv. 

1900;  cfr.  Chr.  Pesch,  S.  J.,  Das  31  irpojTeiuv, 

Suhneleiden  unseres  gottl.  Erldsers, 

pp.  1 13  sqq. 


32 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


primacy.”  If  Christ  holds  first  place  in  the  divine 
economy  of  the  universe,  and  the  world  of  angels  and  men 
was  reserved  to  the  last,  so  runs  the  Scotist  argument,  the 
Incarnation  cannot  have  been  subordinate  to  the  Creation 
and  Redemption,  but,  on  the  contrary,  must  rank  far 
above  it.  Without  Christ  there  could  have  been  no  cre¬ 
ation.  Hence  Christ  is  “  before  all,”  “  the  first-born  of 
every  creature.”  32  He  is  the  centre  and  pivot  of  the  uni¬ 
verse,  not  in  consequence  of  the  Fall,  but  absolutely  and 
from  all  eternity.  He  has  not  been  added  to  the  created 
universe  by  accident,  but  rules  it  as  TrpwretW,  and  is  the 
Alpha  and  Omega  of  all  things  from  the  beginning.33 

b)  Though  this  theory  cannot  be  strictly  dem¬ 
onstrated  from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  yet 
the  Patristic  interpretation  of  several  passages  in 
the  Sapiential  Books  of  the  Old  Testament  seems 
to  lend  it  weight.  The  fact  that  the  Fathers 
were  unable  to  gauge  the  full  bearing  of  their 
interpretation  does  not  forbid  us  to  push  to  their 
legitimate  conclusions  the  principles  which  they 
asserted. 

We  have  pointed  out  in  our  treatise  on  the  Trinity34 
that  certain  of  the  Fathers  applied  Proverbs  VIII,  22: 
“  The  Lord  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his  ways, 
before  he  made  anything  from  the  beginning,”  35  to  the 
temporal  birth  of  the  Logos,  that  is,  the  Incarnation. 
This  can  only  mean  that  Christ  was  predestined  to  be 

32  Col.  I,  15;  cfr.  Rom.  VIII,  29.  34  Pohle-Preuss,  The  Divine  Trin- 

33  The  objections  urged  against  ity,  p.  157. 

this  interpretation  may  be  read  in  35  “  Dominus  possedit  CcKruxe)  me 
De  Lugo,  De  Myst.  Incarn.,  disp.  in  initio  viarum  suarum,  antequam 
7,  sect.  2.  quidquam  faceret  a  principio,” 


THE  SCOTISTIC  THEORY 


33 


the  First  and  that  all  things  were  created  for  His  sake.36 

On  the  strength  of  Gen.  II,  24  and  Eph.  V,  31  sqq. 
several  Fathers  held  that  the  nature  of  matrimony,  as  an 
image  of  “  Christ’s  union  with  His  Church,”  was  re¬ 
vealed  to  Adam  in  Paradise.  If  this  be  true,  our  Lord’s 
appearance  on  earth  cannot  be  conceived  as  conditioned 
by  the  Fall.  “  Even  if  man  had  not  sinned,  but 
had  remained  in  the  state  of  innocence,”  says  St.  Augus¬ 
tine,37  “  matrimony  would  still  be  the  symbol  of  Christ’s 
union  with  His  Church.”  38 

When  it  comes  to  theological  arguments,  the 
Scotists  can  allege  in  their  favor  all  the  reasons 
which  we  have  given  above  for  the  congruity  of 
the  Incarnation  as  such,  especially  the  fact  that, 
in  the  words  of  Lessius,39  “by  the  assumption  of 
man  the  whole  universe  was,  after  a  fashion, 
assumed  into  and  united  with  the  Godhead.” 
Strangely  enough,  Lessius  subsequently  under¬ 
mined  his  own  position  by  saying:  “If  any 
created  nature  was  to  be  assumed  primarily  for 
the  sake  of  perfecting  the  universe,  it  would 
have  been  the  most  perfect,  i.  e.,  that  of  the 
highest  angel.”  40  This  conclusion  does  not  fol¬ 
low.  Unlike  man,  an  angel  is  not  a  “microcosm.” 
Besides,  there  is  something  sublime  and  over- 

36  Cfr.  Suarez,  De  Incarn.,  disp.  38  For  the  Thomist  reply  to  this 

5,  sect.  2.  argument  see  Lessius,  De  Praedest. 

37  "  Coniugium  etiatn  in  statu  in-  Christi,  n.  23  sqq. 

nocentiae,  si  homo  non  peccasset,  39  De  Perfect.  Mor.  Div.,  XII,  4. 
futurum  sacramentum  coniunctionis  40  De  Praedest.  Christi,  n.  9. 

Christi  cum  Ecclesia.”  (De  Nupt. 
et  Concup.,  I,  21.) 


34 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


whelming  in  the  thought  that,  as  Scotism  con¬ 
sistently  teaches,  not  only  all  men  but  all  angels, 
not  only  fallen  and  sinful  man,  but  likewise  man 
as  constituted  in  Paradise,  owe  their  original 
sanctity  entirely  to  the  merits  of  an  absolutely 
predestined  Redeemer;  that  all  grace  radiates 
from  Christ,  the  “sun  of  justice,”  who  sanctifies 
angels  and  men  and  disperses  the  shadows  of 
death. 

Perhaps  the  weightiest  argument  adduced  for 
the  Scotist  position  is  the  one  developed  by  Su¬ 
arez:  The  end  cannot  be  inferior  to  the  means 
devised  for  its  attainment.  This  would  be  the 
case  if  the  Incarnation  merely  served  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  Redemption.  Christ  is  not  only  the 
crown  of  the  created  universe,  He  is  also  the  cli¬ 
max  of  divine  glorification.  Without  Him  the 
universe  would  be  meaningless.  He  who  is  high¬ 
est  and  most  perfect  in  the  order  of  being,  must 
also  be  first  in  the  plan  of  creation,  and  the  ful¬ 
ness  of  divine  glory  cannot  have  been  dependent 
on  the  accident  of  the  Fall. 

The  Scotistic  theory  recommends  itself  by  its 
sublimity.  It  groups  angels  and  men  around  the 
Godman  as  the  center  of  the  universe,  the  high¬ 
est  and  final  revelation,  the  beginning  and  end  of 
all  things.41 

41  Hugon,  Revue  Thomiste,  May-  1921  (an  able  statement  of  the 
June,  1913;  P-  Chrysostom,  O.  F.  Scotist  position).— L.  J.  Walker, 
M.,  Le  Motif  de  I’lncarnation  et  S.  J.,  Why  God  Became  Man,  New 
les  Principaux  Thomistes  Confetti-  York  1921. 
porains,  Tours  (Marcel  Cattier), 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  REDEMPTION  OF  THE  HUMAN  RACE  THROUGH 

Christ’s  vicarious  atonement 
SECTION  i 

the  reality  of  Christ’s  vicarious  atonement 

ARTICLE  i 

VICARIOUS  ATONEMENT  DEFINED 

This  Chapter  deals  with  the  concrete  fact  of  Christ’s 
vicarious  atonement  ( satisf  actio  vie  aria)  rather  than  with 
the  abstract  notion  of  Redemption,  which  even  heretics 
do  not  entirely  deny ;  hence  we  must  be  careful  to  define 
our  terms. 

i.  Explanation  of  the  Term  “Atone¬ 
ment.” — a)  By  atonement  we  understand  the 
reparation  of  any  wrong  or  injury,  either  ma¬ 
terial  ( damnum )  or  moral  ( offensa ,  iniuria). 
Material  injury  demands  restitution;  moral  in¬ 
jury  can  be  repaired  only  by  satisfaction  or  atone¬ 
ment  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term.  The  Roman 
Catechism  defines  “satisfaction”  as  “nothing  else 
than  compensation  for  an  injury  ofifered  to  an¬ 
other.”  Satisfaction  in  the  sense  of  discharging 

35 


36 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


a  penance  enjoined  in  confession  will  be  treated 
in  connection  with  the  Sacrament  of  Penance. 

b)  Atonement,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  term 
is  used  in  Soteriology,  presupposes  an  offence 
committed  against,  or  an  injury  done  to,  God. 
It  is  for  our  sins  that  God  demands  satisfaction. 
Sin  and  satisfaction  are  consequently  correlative 
terms,  or,  to  put  it  more  accurately,  they  are  an¬ 
titheses  clamoring  for  reconciliation. 

The  concept  of  sin  contains  a  twofold  element : 
guilt  ( reatus  culpae )  and  punishability  ( reatus 
poenae).  Guilt  and  punishability  are  insepara¬ 
ble.  Their  gravity  depends  partly  on  the  dignity 
of  the  person  offended  ( gravitas  formalis )  and 
partly  on  the  character  of  the  offence  committed 
{gravitas  materialis).  God  is  infinite  in  dig¬ 
nity  and  majesty;  therefore  every  grievous  sin, 
morally  considered,  involves  an  infinite  offence. 
“A  sin  committed  against  God,”  says  St.  Thomas, 
“partakes  in  a  manner  of  infinity,  through  its  re¬ 
lation  to  the  infinite  majesty  of  God;  for  an  of¬ 
fence  is  the  more  serious,  the  greater  the  person 
offended.”  1 

Considered  as  a  moral  delinquency  on  the  part 
of  man,  sin  is  a  merely  finite  evil.  In  respect  of 
God,  however,  it  is  infinite.  “Iniuria  est  in  iniuri- 
atoA  This  applies,  of  course,  only  to  mortal  sin, 
which  seriously  disturbs  the  sinner’s  relation  to 


1 S.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  i,  art.  2,  ad  2. 


VICARIOUS  ATONEMENT 


37 


God.  This  relation,  if  justice  be  given  free 
scope,  cannot  be  restored  except  by  means  of  ade¬ 
quate  satisfaction  ( emptio ,  redemptio). 

c)  Grievous  sin,  as  we  have  said,  involves  an 
infinite  offence,  for  which  no  creature,  least  of 
all  the  sinner  himself,  can  render  adequate  satis¬ 
faction.  Adequate  in  this  case  means  infinite 
satisfaction,  and  infinite  satisfaction  can  be 
given  only  by  one  who  is  infinite  in  dignity. 
Hence  none  but  a  Godman  could  redeem  the  hu¬ 
man  race.  Hence  also  the  necessity  of  a  vica¬ 
rious  atonement. 

2.  Definition  of  “Vicarious  Atonement.” 
— The  notion  of  vicariatio  does  not  imply  that  he 
who  acts  as  substitute  or  representative  for  an¬ 
other  takes  upon  himself  the  other’s  guilt  or  sin 
as  such.  No  one  can  be  the  bearer  or  subject 
of  another’s  sins.  In  this  erroneous  sense  vicar¬ 
ious  atonement  involves  a  contradiction,  because 
no  mediator  can  give  satisfaction  for  another’s 
sins  unless  he  is  himself  sinless.  Vicarious  atone¬ 
ment,  therefore,  can  only  mean  the  voluntary  as¬ 
sumption  of  a  punishment  due  to  sin, —  not  in¬ 
deed  the  reatus  poence,  which  implies  real  guilt, 
but  the  penance  imposed  by  God.  In  other  words, 
the  Godman  renders  infinite  satisfaction  in  our 
stead,  and  this  satisfaction  by  its  objective  worth 
counterbalances  our  infinite  offence  and  is  ac- 


38 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


cepted  by  God  as  though  it  were  given  by  our¬ 
selves. 

To  illustrate  the  case  by  an  analogy.  The 
human  race  is  like  an  insolvent  merchant.  Christ 
voluntarily  assumes  our  obligations  and  is  com¬ 
pelled  to  pay  the  whole  debt.  The  sum  of  this 
debt  is  His  Precious  Blood.  ( i  Pet.  I,  18  sq.) 

3.  Objections  Refuted. — The  Socinians,  and 
modern  Rationalists  generally,  reject  the  Cath¬ 
olic  dogma  of  Christ's  vicarious  atonement  on  the 
pretext  that  it  involves  manifest  contradictions, 
(a)  with  regard  to  God,  (b)  with  regard  to 
Christ,  and  (c)  with  regard  to  man.  We  will 
briefly  examine  these  alleged  contradictions. 

a)  The  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  held  to  be  con¬ 
tradictory  in  respect  of  God  for  the  reason  that  forgive¬ 
ness  of  sins  is  sometimes  attributed  to  pure  mercy  and 
sometimes  to  strict  justice,  whereas  these  two  attributes 
are  mutually  exclusive. 

If  the  simultaneous  manifestation  of  God’s  infinite 
mercy  and  justice  really  involved  an  intrinsic  contradic¬ 
tion,  St.  Paul  would  have  been  the  first  to  incur  this 
charge,  for  he  says  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans :  “  You 

are  justified  freely  by  his  grace,2  through  the  redemp¬ 
tion  3  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.”  4  In  exacting  satisfaction 
for  our  sins  from  His  own  Son  instead  of  us  poor  sin¬ 
ners,  God  exercised  in  an  eminent  manner  both  His 
mercy  and  His  justice.  There  is  no  contradiction  in¬ 
volved  in  this  proposition.  This  would  be  the  case  only 
if  the  sinner  were  held  to  give  adequate  satisfaction  in 


2  8o>peav  rjj  avrov  X®PlTt.  3  5ta  rijs  airoXvTpuaeuS'  4  Rom.  Ill,  24. 


VICARIOUS  ATONEMENT 


39 


person  and  his  performance  subsequently  stamped  as  a 
grace.  Holy  Scripture  is  perfectly  consistent  in  teach¬ 
ing,  on  the  one  hand,  that  “  God  so  loved  the  world  as 
to  give  his  only-begotten  Son,”  5  and,  on  the  other,  that- 
“  by  sending  his  own  Son,  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh, 
and  of  sin,  [God]  hath  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh.”  6 

b)  The  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  declared  to  be 
contradictory  for  the  further  reason  that  it  involves  the 
punishment  of  an  innocent  person  in  lieu  of  the  guilty 
criminal.  It  is  downright  murder,  however  disguised, 
for  God  to  exact  the  blood  of  His  own  guiltless  Son  in 
expiation  for  the  sins  of  others,  say  the  Rationalists. 

God  would  indeed  be  unjust  had  He  imposed  the  guilt 
and  punishment  of  others  upon  His  innocent  Son  as 
though  He  were  the  guilty  criminal.  But  this  is  by  no 
means  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  Not  having  per¬ 
sonally  sinned,  Christ  could  not  be  punished  as  a  sin¬ 
ner.  Hence  His  death  was  not  a  punishment  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  word,  but  merely  a  satisfactio 
laboriosa.  Furthermore,  it  was  not  imposed  on  Him 
against  His  will.  He  Himself  declares :  “  I  lay  down 

my  life  for  my  sheep.  ...  I  lay  it  down  of  myself,7  and  I 
have  power  to  lay  it  down :  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  up 
again.” 8  Volenti  non  fit  iniuria  (No  wrong  arises  to 
one  who  consents).  Hence  the  atonement  cannot  be 
said  to  involve  a  violation  of  commutative  justice.  Nor 
does  it  run  counter  to  distributive  justice,  for  Christ’s 
dolorous  passion  and  death,  besides  redounding  to  the  ad¬ 
vantage  of  the  human  race,  also  brought  Him  personal 
reward  and  glory.  Cfr.  Luke  XXIV,  26:  “Ought  not 

5  John  III,  16.  immutability  of  God,  is  discussed 

6  Rom.  VIII,  3. —  Cfr.  Pohle-  in  the  appendix  to  this  volume,  infra , 
Preuss,  God:  His  Knowability ,  Es-  pp.  165  sq. 

sence,  and  Attributes,  pp.  466  sqq. —  7  d7r’  ifia vtov- 

Another  objection,  based  on  the  8  John  X,  15,  18. 


40 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


Christ  to  have  suffered  these  things,  and  so  to  enter  into 
his  glory  ?  ” 

c)  In  regard  to  man,  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement 
is  denounced  as  repugnant  on  the  score  that  one 
who  is  guilty  of  a  crime  should,  as  a  point  of  honor, 
give  the  necessary  satisfaction  himself,  and  not  shift 
this  painful  duty  to  another.  Our  Rationalist  adver¬ 
saries  add  that  the  idea  of  a  man’s  appropriating  to 
himself  the  fruits  of  another’s  labor  is  preposterous. 
They  overlook  the  fact  that  man  was  absolutely  unable 
to  render  adequate  satisfaction  for  sin.  God  manifested 
His  infinite  love  and  mercy  precisely  in  deigning  to  accept 
a  vicarious  atonement.  It  cannot  be  proved  that  this 
involves  an  injustice.  The  objection  will  lose  much 
of  its  force  if  we  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that 
Christ  represented  the  human  race  in  the  order  of  grace 
in  much  the  same  manner  in  which  Adam  had  vicari¬ 
ously  represented  it  upon  the  occasion  of  the  Fall.  Hence 
the  Scriptural  antithesis  between  the  “  first  Adam  ”  and 
the  “  second  Adam.”  Christ  is  no  stranger  to  us ;  He  is 
“  bone  of  our  bone,”  our  “  brother  ”  as  well  as  our  spir¬ 
itual  head.  His  merits  constitute  as  it  were  a  family 
heirloom,  in  which  each  of  us  has  a  share. 

The  privilege  of  participating  in  the  merits  of  Christ’s 
vicarious  atonement  does  not  relieve  us  of  the  duty  of 
personally  atoning  for  our  sins.  That  Christ  has  ren¬ 
dered  adequate  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
race,  does  not  mean  that  each  individual  human  being  is: 
eo  ipso  subjectively  redeemed.  This  is  the  teaching  of 
“  orthodox  ”  Lutheranism,  not  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
We  Catholics  believe  that  the  individual  sinner  must  feel 
sorry  for  his  sins,  confess  them,  and  render  satisfaction 
for  them, —  though,  of  course,  no  satisfaction  can  be  of 


THE  DOGMA  PROVED 


41 


any  avail  except  it  is  based  on  the  merits  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.9 


ARTICLE  2 

THE  DOGMA  OF  CHRIST’S  VICARIOUS  ATONEMENT  PROVED 

FROM  REVELATION. 


i.  Various  Heresies  and  the  Teaching  of 
the  Church. — The  heretical  opinions  that  have 
arisen  in  course  of  time  with  regard  to  the  dogma 
of  Christ’s  vicarious  atonement  owe  their  in¬ 
spiration  either  to  Rationalism  or  to  Pantheism. 
The  Rationalist  error  that  the  idea  of  individual 
liberty  absolutely  excludes  original  sin,  found 
its  embodiment  in  Pelagianism  and  Socinianism, 
two  heretical  systems  which,  though  not  con¬ 
temporaneous,  agreed  in  denying  original  sin  and 
the  atonement.  Pantheism,  which  merges  all 
individuals  into  one  Absolute  Being  and  regards 
sin  as  a  function  of  the  Godhead,  gave  birth  to 
Gnosticism  and  modern  Theosophy. 


a)  All  these  heresies  are  based  on  a  radically  wrong 
conception  of  the  nature  of  sin. 
a)  Pelagianism  rests  on  the  fundamental  fallacy 


8  Cfr.  Cone .  Trident.,  Sess.  XIV, 
cap.  8  (Denzinger-Bannwart,  En¬ 
chiridion,  n.  904).  An  excellent 
treatise  on  the  philosophical  aspects 
of  the  atonement  is  G.  A.  Pell’s 
Das  Dogma  von  der  Siinde  und  Er- 
losung  im  Lichte  der  Vernunft,  Rat- 
isbon  1886.  Edw.  von  Hartmann’s 


specious  objections  (see  that  writer’s 
book,  Die  Krisis  des  Christentums 
in  der  modernen  Theologie,  pp.  10 
sqq.,  Berlin  1882)  are  effectively 
refuted  by  B.  Dorholt,  Die  Lehre 
von  der  Genugtuung  Christi,  pp. 
160  sqq..  Paderborn  1891. 


42 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


that  sin  is  essentially  the  free  act  of  an  individual  and 
cannot  be  conceived  as  moral  guilt  incurred  by  propa¬ 
gation  (original  sin).  In  consequence  of  this  basic  error, 
the  Pelagians  wrongly  held  that  the  grace  of  Christ  has 
for  its  object  not  the  redemption  of  the  whole  human  race 
by  the  effacement  of  an  inherited  sin  of  nature,  but  the 
setting  up  of  an  ideal  or  pattern  of  virtue  in  accordance 
with  which  the  individual  is  obliged  to  regulate  his  per¬ 
sonal  conduct.  Christ  gave  us  “  a  good  example  ”  to 
counteract  the  “  bad  example  ”  set  by  Adam.  Pelagian- 
ism  credited  the  sinner  with  sufficient  strength  to  arise 
after  falling,  nay  to  attain  to  a  state  of  perfect  sinless¬ 
ness1  without  supernatural  aid,  and  hence  denied  the  ne¬ 
cessity  of  grace  and  unduly  exaggerated  the  moral  ca¬ 
pacity  of  human  nature.2 

The  soteriological  consequences  implied  in  Pelagius’ 
system  were  expressly  drawn  by  Socinianism.  This  her¬ 
esy  originated  towards  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century 
by  way  of  a  reaction  against  “  orthodox  ”  Protestantism. 
Its  founders  were  Laelius  Socinus  and  his  nephew 
Faustus,  both  natives  of  Siena,  Italy.  Faustus  Socinus 
(r  539-1604)  systematized  and  developed  the  teachings 
of  his  uncle  in  several  works:  De  Christo  Servatore,  De 
Officio  Christi,  and  Brevis  Discursus  de  Ratione  Salutis 


1  Impeccantia,  dpa/iapTTjaia. 

2  Cfr.  Blunt’s  Dictionary  of  Sects, 
Heresies,  Ecclesiastical  Parties,  and 
Schools  of  Religious  Thought,  pp. 
415  sqq.,  New  Impression,  London 
1903;  also  the  Preface  to  P. 
Holmes’  translation  of  The  Anti- 
Pelagian  Works  of  Saint  Augustine, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  i  sqq.,  Edinburgh  1872. 
St.  Augustine  treats  at  length  of 
Pelagianism  in  the  following  books: 
De  Nuptiis  et  Concupiscentia,  Contra 
Duas  Epistolas  Pelagianorum,  En¬ 
chiridion,  De  Gratia  et  Liber o  Ar- 


bitrio,  De  Correptione  et  Gratia,  De 
Praedestinatione  Sanctorum,  De 
Dono  Perseverantiae,  Contra  Iulia- 
num  Pelagianum,  De  Gestis  Pelagii, 
De  Octo  Dulcitii  Quaestionibus,  Com¬ 
ment.  in  Psalmos,  Serm.,  x  and  xiv, 
and  in  his  Epistles  to  Paulinus,  Op- 
tatus,  Sextus,  Celestine,  Vitalis,  and 
Valentine.  Cfr.  also  the  Varia 
Scripta  et  Monument  a  ad  Pelagia¬ 
norum  Historiam  Pertin--'tia  at  the 
close  of  Vol.  X  of  the  Benedictine 
edition  of  St.  Augustine’s  works. 


GNOSTICISM 


43 


Nostrae  ex  Sermonibus  Fausti  Socini3  Socinianism 
denied  the  Trinity,  the  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
necessity  of  supernatural  grace,  and  the  dogma  of  the 
vicarious  atonement.  Its  champions  alleged  that  Christ  is 
properly  speaking  neither  our  Saviour  nor  a  true  high 
priest,  but  merely  a  teacher  pointing  the  way  to  salva¬ 
tion.  The  chief  object  of  His  coming  was  to  inculcate 
the  “  Our  Father.”  To  the  Socinians  have  succeeded 
the  modern  Unitarians,  who  are  distinguished  from 
their  predecessors  principally  by  the  denial  of  the  mi¬ 
raculous  conception  of  our  Lord  and  the  repudiation  of 
His  worship.  The  Socinian  theology  also  had  consid¬ 
erable  influence  in  forming  the  modern  Rationalist 
school.4 

Hermes  and  Gunther5  held  an  intermediate  position 
between  the  Catholic  dogma  and  these  heretical  vagaries. 

/ 3 )  Diametrically  opposed  to  the  soteriological  teach¬ 
ing  of  the  Pelagians  and  Socinians  is  that  of  the  Gnostics 
and  Theosophists. 

Gnosticism  was  at  bottom  a  Manichsean  heresy.  Its 
votaries  held  that,  since  the  human  soul  is  part  of  that 
principle  ( hyle )  which  is  essentially  bad,  sin  cannot  be  a 
moral  delinquency,  and  for  a  man  to  be  redeemed  from 
sin  implies  no  more  than  that  his  soul  is  freed  from 
the  shackles  of  the  material  body.  The  human  nature  of 
Christ  was  regarded  by  the  Gnostics  as  purely  fictitious 
and  apparitional,  because  the  Divine  Logos  could  not  pos¬ 
sibly  unite  Himself  with  matter,  which  is  essentially  evil. 


3  These  writings  are  collected  in 
the  Bibliotheca  Fratrum  Polonorum, 
Vols.  i  and  2,  Irenopoli  1656. 

4  Blunt,  Dictionary  of  Sects,  etc., 

p.  568.  For  a  detailed  analysis  of 
the  Socinian  teaching  see  A.  Har- 
nack,  Dogmengeschichte,  Vol.  Ill, 


4th  ed.,  pp.  784  sqq.,  Freiburg  1910. 

5  On  the  teaching  of  Hermes 
(-{-  1831)  and  Gunther  (-f-  1863), 
cfr.  J.  Kleutgen,  S.  J.,  Theologie 
der  Vorzeit,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  457  sqq., 
Munster  1870. 


4 


44 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


In  such  a  system,  needless  to  say,  there  was  no  room  for 
the  Redemption,  much  less  for  a  vicarious  atonement. 

Theosophy  is  subject  to  similar  delusions.  Being 
radically  Pantheistic,  it  regards  sin  as  a  cosmic  factor 
of  equal  necessity  and  importance  with  virtue.  Good  and 
evil  to  the  Theosophist  are  two  world-powers  endowed 
with  equal  rights.  Sin  is  merely  a  limitation  of  infinity. 
The  Absolute  Being  alone,  conceived  as  an  impersonal 
spirit,  is  unbounded  and  sinless.  Each  individual  human 
soul  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  Absolute,  and  as  such 
its  own  God.  In  other  words,  the  Deity  becomes  incar¬ 
nate  in  every  human  being.  The  human  race  may  be  said 
to  have  been  redeemed  by  Christ  only  in  the  sense  that  He 
was  the  first  to  enlighten  men  on  the  true  relationship 
between  the  finite  and  the  infinite,  between  good  and  evil. 
The  real  redemption  of  man  consists  in  his  re-absorption 
into  the  infinite  ocean  of  being,  out  of  which  he  has  tem¬ 
porarily  emerged  like  a  foam-crested  wave.6 


b)  Though  the  Church  has  never  formally  (in 
terminis )  defined  the  doctrine  of  the  vicarious 
atonement,7  she  has  nevertheless  inculcated  the 
substance  of  it  so  often  and  so  vigorously  that  it 
may  be  said  to  be  one  of  the  cardinal  dogmas  of 
the  Catholic  religion.  The  Third  General  Council 
of  Ephesus  (A.  D.  431)  solemnly  defined:  “If 
any  one  therefore  says  that  [Christ]  offered  Him- 


6  On  modern  Theosophy  cfr. 
Madame  Blavatky’s  Isis  Unveiled, 
The  Secret  Doctrine,  and  Key  to 
Theosophy ;  also  the  numerous  writ¬ 
ings  of  Annie  Besant,  especially  her 
Esoteric  Christianity;  A.  P.  War¬ 
rington,  art.  “  Theosophy  ”  in  the 
Encyclopedia  Americana,  Vol.  XV; 


E.  R.  Hull,  S.  J.,  Studies  in  The - 
osophy,  2nd  ed.,  Bombay  1905;  J 
T.  Driscoll  in  the  Catholic  Encyclo¬ 
pedia,  Vol.  XIV,  pp.  628  sqq. 

7  Cfr.  K.  Martin,  Cone.  Vatican. 
Document.  Collectio,  p.  37,  Pader* 
born  1873. 


THE  DOGMA 


45 


self  up  as  a  sacrifice  for  Himself,  and  not  solely 
for  us,8  let  him  be  anathema.” 9  Still  more 
clearly  the  Council  of  Trent:  “If  any  one  as¬ 
serts  that  this  sin  of  Adam  ...  is  taken  away 
.  .  .  by  any  other  remedy  than  the  merit  of  the 
one  Mediator,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath 
reconciled  us  to  God  in  His  own  blood,  made  unto 
us  justice,  sanctification  and  redemption,  ...  let 
him  be  anathema.”  10  In  another  place  the  same 
Council  says:  “[Christ]  by  His  most  holy  pas¬ 
sion  on  the  wood  of  the  Cross  merited  justifica¬ 
tion  for  us  and  made  satisfaction  for  us  unto  God 
the  Father.”11  The  last-quoted  phrase  closely 
resembles  the  technical  terminology  of  the 
Schools. 

2.  Proof  from  Sacred  Scripture. — The  vi¬ 
carious  atonement  is  clearly  inculcated  both  by 
the  Old  and  the  New  Testament,  though  not,  of 
course,  in  the  technical  terms  of  modern  theology. 

a)  Isaias  gives  graphic  expression  to  it  in  the 


8  Kal  ovxl  virep  fiovcev  ijp-uy. 
Here  is  the  whole  passage  in  Latin: 
“  Si  quis  ergo  dicit,  quod  pro  se 
obtulisset  [ Christus ]  semetipsum 
oblationem  et  non  potius  pro  nobis 
solis,  anathema  sit.” 

9  Cone.  Ephes.,  can.  io  (Denzin- 
ger-Bannwart,  Enchiridion,  n.  122). 
—  Cfr.  the  Decretum  pro  Iacobitis 
(ibid.,  n.  71 1). 

10  “  Si  quis  hoc  Adae  peccatum 

.  .  .  per  aliud  remedium  asserit  tolli 
quam  per  meritum  unius  mediatoris 


D.  N.  lesu  Christi,  qui  nos  Deo 
reconciliavit  in  sanguine  suo,  factus 
nobis  iustitia,  sanctificatio  et  redempt 
tio,  .  .  .  anathema  sit.”  Cone.  Tri¬ 
dent.,  Sess.  V,  can.  3  (Denzinger- 
Bannwart,  n.  790). 

11  "  Qui  .  .  .  sua  sanctissima  pas- 
sione  in  ligno  crucis  nobis  iustifi- 
cationem  meruit  et  pro  nobis  Deo 
Patri  satisfecit.”  Cone.  Trident., 
Sess.  VI,  cap.  7  (Denzinger-Bann- 
wart,  n.  799).  We  use  Water- 
worth’s  translation. 


4  6 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


famous  prophecy  which  describes  the  suffering 
of  the  “Servant  of  God.” 

The  Messianic  character  of  this  prophecy  is  sufficiently 
established  by  such  New  Testament  texts  as  Mark  XV, 
28,  Luke  XXII,  37,  Acts  VIII,  33,  1  Pet.  II,  22  sqq.12 
We  quote  its  salient  passages :  “  Surely  he  hath  borne 

our  infirmities,  and  carried  our  sorrows,  and  we  have 
thought  him  as  it  were  a  leper,  and  as  one  struck  by 
God  and  afflicted.  But  he  was  wounded  for  our  ini¬ 
quities,  he  was  bruised  for  our  sins;  the  chastisement 
of  our  peace  was  upon  him,  and  by  his  bruises  we  are 
healed.  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray,  every  one 
hath  turned  aside  into  his  own  way;  and  the  Lord  hath 
laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.  He  was  offered  13  be¬ 
cause  it  was  his  own  will,14  and  he  opened  not  his  mouth ; 
he  shall  be  led  as  a  sheep  to  the  slaughter.  .  .  .  For  the 
wickedness  of  my  people  have  I  struck  him.  .  .  .  Be¬ 
cause  his  soul  hath  labored,  he  shall  see  and  be  filled; 
by  his  knowledge  shall  this  my  just  servant  justify 
many,  and  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities  ...  he  hath 
borne  the  sins  of  many,  and  hath  prayed  for  the  trans¬ 
gressors.”  15  The  vicarious  character  of  the  “  Ser¬ 
vant’s  ”  suffering  is  asserted  no  less  than  eight  times  in 
this  passage :  ( 1 )  “  He  hath  borne  our  infirmities ;  ” 

(2)  He  has  “  carried  our  sorrows;”  (3)  “He  was 
wounded  for  our  iniquities;”  (4)  “He  was  bruised  for 
our  sins;”  (5)  The  “chastisement  of  our  peace  was 

12  The  argument  is  well  developed  14  On  certain  textual  difficulties 

by  A.  J.  Maas,  S.  J.,  Christ  in  connected  with  the  Hebrew  word 
Type  and  Prophecy ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  na‘aneh,  see  Maas.,  1.  c.,  p.  241, 
231  sqq.,  New  York  1895.  note. 

13  The  Masoretic  text  has,  he  was  15  Is.  LIII,  4-12. 
called  upon.  (Cfr.  Maas,  l.  c.,  p. 

240,  note.) 


SCRIPTURAL  PROOF 


47 


upon  him;”16  (6)  “By  his  bruises  we  are  healed;” 
(7)  “  The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us 
all;”  (8)  “He  was  offered  because  it  was  his  own 
will.”  17  The  passage  furthermore  embraces  all  the  es¬ 
sential  elements  of  Christ’s  vicarious  atonement,  to  wit: 
(a)  the  substitution  of  the  innocent  Messias  for  guilty 
sinners;  (b)  the  resulting  remission  of  punishment 
and  healing  of  the  evil-doers;  (c)  the  manner  in  which 
He  made  satisfaction,  i.  e .,  His  sacrificial  death.18 

b)  The  New  Testament  inculcates  the  dogma 
of  the  vicarious  atonement  both  directly  and  in¬ 
directly. 

«)  The  texts  which  teach  it  directly  nearly  all 
employ  the  phraseology  of,  and  are  dependent 
upon,  Isaias.  Take,  e.  g.,  the  exclamation  of  John 
the  Baptist  recorded  in  John  I,  29:  “Behold  the 
Lamb  of  God,  behold  him  who  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world.”  The  passage  reads  as  fol¬ 
lows  in  the  original  Greek:  “  sTSc  6  dp,v6s  rov  ®eov 

6  aipcov  rrjv  afiapriav  tov  Kocrpov The  dptapTia  rov  Koapcov 

is  original  sin.  The  verb  atpeiv,  like  the  Hebrew 
words  and  employed  by  Isaias,19  besides 
tollere ,  i.  e.,  to  take  away,  also  means  ferre  or 
portare,  i.  e to  assume  or  bear  for  another. 

St.  Peter  no  doubt  had  the  prophecy  of  Isaias 

16  That  is:  The  punishment  which  inferred  from  the  nature  of  the  suf- 
was  to  procure  our  peace  with  God  fering.  Cfr.  Maas,  Christ  in  Type 
and  with  men,  was  inflicted  on  him.  and  Prophecy,  Vpl.  II,  p.  240,  note. 

17  In  this  clause  the  prophet  rather  IS  Cfr.  F.  Feldmann,  Der  Knecht 
describes  the  detail  of  the  Servant’s  Gottes  in  Isaias,  Ch.  40-55,  Frei- 
sufferings  than  insists  on  its  vicari-  burg,  1907. 

ous  character;  but  this,  too,  may  be  19  Is,  LIII,  4  and  11, 


48 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


in  mind  when  he  wrote :  “Who  his  own  self  bore 
our  sins 20  in  his  body  upon  the  tree  ...  by 
whose  stripes  you  were  healed.  For  you  were 
as  sheep  going  astray ;  but  you  are  now  converted 
to  the  shepherd  and  bishop  of  your  souls/' 21 
This  text  clearly  inculcates  Christ’s  vicarious 
atonement  and  describes  its  concrete  realization 
(His  death  on  the  Cross). 

St.  Paul  is  equally  clear.  Cfr.  2  Cor.  V,  21 : 
“Him,  who  knew  no  sin,  he  hath  made  sin  for 
us,  that  we  might  be  made  the  justice  of  God 
in  him.”  The  graphic  phrase  wep  ^ v  apapriav 
iTroLrjaev  ovtov  either  means:  He  hath  made  him 
who  was  sinless  a  sinner,  or,  more  probably,  He 
hath  made  him  who  was  sinless  a  sacrifice  for 
sin.22  In  either  case  St.  Paul  asserts  the  dogma 
of  Christ’s  vicarious  atonement. 

Special  importance  attaches  to  the  many  New 
Testament  texts  which  speak  of  man  as  being 
“bought”  or  “purchased”  by  the  Precious  Blood 
of  Christ.  Cfr.  i  Cor.  VI,  20:  “For  you  are 
bought  with  a  great  price.”  23  1  Pet.  I,  18  sq. : 

“.  .  .  you  were  not  redeemed  24  with  corruptible 
things  as  gold  and  silver,  .  .  .  but  with  the  pre¬ 
cious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  unspotted 
and  undefiled.”  These  terms  are  borrowed  from 

20  dvrivey nev.  23  riyopaaOiiTe. 

21  i  Pet.  II,  24  sq.  24  Redempti  estis,  iXvTpudTjre. _ _ 

22  afiapria  =  sacrificium  pro  pec-  Cfr.  also  Rom.  Ill,  24,  Eph.  I,  7, 

cato.  Cfr.  Gal.  Ill,  13.  1  Tim.  II,  6, 


SCRIPTURAL  PROOF 


49 


legal  and  mercantile  usage;  they  mean  that  men 
who  groaned  in  the  bondage  of  sin  were  re¬ 
garded  as  free  or  redeemed  by  God  as  soon  as 
Christ  had  offered  His  Precious  Blood  for  them. 
All  of  which  proves  ( i )  the  reality  of  the  atone¬ 
ment  and  (2)  its  vicarious  character. 

/?)  Indirectly  the  Bible  teaches  the  vicarious 
atonement  in  all  those  passages  in  which  Christ 
is  called  the  “second  Adam”  and  contrasted  with 
the  progenitor  of  the  human  race.  Cfr.  Rom. 
V,  14  sqq. :  “Death  reigned  from  Adam  unto 
Moses,  even  over  them  also  who  have  not  sinned 
after  the  similitude  of  the  transgression  of  Adam, 
who  is  a  figure  of  him  who  was  to  come.  But 
not  as  the  offence,  so  also  the  gift.  For  if  by 
the  offence  of  one,  many  died;  much  more  the 
grace  of  God,  and  the  gift,  by  the  grace  of  one 
man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath  abounded  unto  many. 
.  .  .  For  if  by  one  man’s  offence  death  reigned 
through  one;  much  more  they  who  receive  abun¬ 
dance  of  grace,  and  of  the  gift,  and  of  justice, 
shall  reign  in  life  through  one,  Jesus  Christ. 
Therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of  one,  unto  all  men 
to  condemnation;  so  also  by  the  justice  of  one, 
unto  all  men  to  justification  of  life,”  etc.  1  Cor. 
XV,  22  sqq.:  “As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  also  in 
Christ  all  shall  be  made  alive,”  etc. 

Adam,  the  physical  and  juridical  head  of  the  human 
race,  sinned  vicariously,  because  he  was  the  representa- 


50 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


tive  of  all;  in  a  similar  manner  Jesus  Christ  represented 
the  whole  race  when  He  restored  it  to  justice.  St.  Paul’s 
parallel  would  be  meaningless  if  our  Saviour  had  not 
acted  as  the  representative  of  the  entire  human  race 
when  he  died  on  the  Cross.  If  His  role  as  Redeemer  had 
been  confined  to  preaching  and  giving  a  good  example,  as 
the  Socinians  allege,  what  need  was  there  of  His  suffering 
a  cruel  death  ?  And  if  He  died,  not  in  our  stead, 
but  merely  “  for  our  benefit,”  why  do  not  the  Socinians 
acclaim  the  holy  martyrs  as  so  many  redeemers  ?  Christ 
became  our  “  mediator  ”  and  “  redeemer  ”  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tural  sense  of  these  terms  only  by  complementing  His 
teaching  and  example  by  an  act  of  true  and  adequate 
satisfaction  for  our  sins.  It  is  only  in  this  sense  that 
St.  Peter,  “  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,”  was  able  to 
exclaim :  “  Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other 
name,”  25  and  St.  Paul  wrote  to  the  Corinthians :  “  Is 
Christ  divided?  Was  Paul  then  [who  was  also  a 
teacher  of  nations  and  a  martyr]  crucified  for  you?  or 
were  you  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul  ?  ” 26  It  is  only 
in  this  way  that  the  name  “  Jesus  ”  receives  its  full 
significance  as  “  Redeemer  ”  or  “  Saviour  ”  of  the  human 
race. 

In  view  of  the  texts  quoted  it  is  incomprehensible  how 
the  Modernists  can  allege  that  “  the  doctrine  of  the  sacri¬ 
ficial  death  of  Christ  is  not  evangelical,  but  originated 
with  St.  Paul.”  (See  the  Syllabus  of  Pius  X,  prop.  38). 

3.  Proof  from  Tradition. — The  Fathers 
nearly  all  couched  their  teaching  on  the  vicarious 
atonement  in  Scriptural  terms. 

a)  They  did  not  treat  purely  soteriological 


25  Acts  IV,  12. 


26  1  Cor.  I,  13. 


PROOF  FROM  TRADITION 


5i 


questions  ex  professo,  but  merely  adverted  to 
them  upon  occasion.  That  the  Socinians  made 
no  attempt  to  base  their  teaching  upon  Patristic 
texts,  was  due  to  the  fact  that  Hugo  Grotius  had 
triumphantly  demonstrated  the  vicarious  atone¬ 
ment  from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers.27  We 
will  quote  but  two  of  the  many  available  texts. 
“In  accordance  with  the  will  of  God,”  says  St. 
Clement  of  Rome,  “our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  gave 
His  blood  for  us,  and  His  flesh  for  our  flesh,  and 
His  soul  for  our  souls.”  28  And  St.  Polycarp : 
“Let  us  ever  cling  to  our  hope  and  the  pledge 29 
of  our  righteousness,  which  is  Christ  Jesus,  who 
bore  our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  the  tree,  .  .  . 
and  endured  everything  for  our  sakes,  that  we 
might  live  in  Him.”  30 

b)  On  its  philosophical  side  the  dogma  of  the 
vicarious  atonement  underwent  a  process  of  de¬ 
velopment,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  part  which  some 
of  the  older  Fathers  and  ecclesiastical  writers  as¬ 
signed  to  the  Devil. 

“  The  question  arose  as  follows :  God  and  Satan  are 
as  it  were  two  masters  who  contend  for  the  possession 
of  mankind.  Hence  men  by  departing  from  God  fell 

27  H.  Grotius,  Defensio  Fidei  Ca-  tavius,  De  Incarn.,  XII,  9  and 

tholicae  de  Veritate  Satisfactionis,  Thomassin,  Dogm.  Theol.,  IX,  7. 
published  in  1614.  Cfr.  also  Dorholt,  Die  Lehre  von 

28  Ep.  ad  Cor.,  I,  49,  6.  der  Genugtuung  Christi,  pp.  62  sqq., 

29  ru  appa(3uvi,  Paderborn  1891  and  J.  F.  S.  Muth, 

30  Ep.  ad  Phil.,  8. —  Many  addi-  Die  Heilstat  Christi  als  stellvertre- 
tional  proofs  from  the  writings  of  tende  Genugtuung,  pp.  169  sqq., 
the  Fathers  are  to  be  found  in  Pe-  Ratisbon  1904. 


52 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


under  Satan’s  power,  by  whom  they  are  now  kept  in 
bondage.  As,  moreover,  men  had  fallen  into  his  power, 
not  unwillingly,  but  of  their  own  choice,  may  we  not 
say  that  the  Devil  has  over  them  a  real  right,  a  right 
of  property  and  a  right  of  conquest?  Hence,  when  God 
decided  to  free  Satan’s  captives,  was  He  not  bound  in 
justice  to  recognize  and  take  into  consideration  the 
Devil’s  rights?  Many  of  the  Fathers  answered  this 
question  affirmatively.”  31  St.  Irenaeus  was  the  first  to 
insist  on  the  Devil’s  alleged  rights.32  Origen  did  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  Christ  “  ransomed  us  with  His  own 
blood  from  the  power  of  Satan.”  33  This,  in  itself  blas¬ 
phemous  conception,  which  logically  leads  to  the  conclu¬ 
sion  that  Christ  gave  His  blood,  nay  His  very  soul  to 
the  Devil,  was  rejected  by  Adamantius  (about  300), 
who  indignantly  branded  it  as  “  all  nonsense  and  blas¬ 
phemy.”  34  Saint  Gregory  of  Nyssa  followed  in 
Origen’s  footsteps.  But  by  pushing  the  theory  to  its 
logical  conclusions,  he  unconsciously*  demonstrated  its 
absurdity.35  Origen’s  notion  was  formally  rejected  by 
Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  who  declared  that  Christ’s  death 
on  the  Cross  effectively  destroyed  the  tyranny  of  Satan. 
He  says :  “  For  man  to  be  sanctified  by  the  humanity  of 

God,  it  was  necessary  that  He  Himself  should  free  us 
from  the  tyrant,  who  had  to  be  overcome  by  violence,  and 
bring  us  back  to  Himself  through  the  mediation  of  His 


31 J.  Riviere,  Le  Dogme  de  la 
Redemption ,  Paris,  1905,  (English 
translation  by  L.  Cappadelta,  in  2 
vols.,  London  1909).  The  above 
passage  is  quoted  from  Vol.  II,  pp. 
hi  sq.  of  the  English  translation. 
Over  one-half  of  the  second  volume 
is  devoted  to  a  discussion  of  “  The 
Devil’s  Rights.” 

32  Cfr,  Riviere-Cappadelta,  The 


Doctrine  of  the  Atonement ,  Vol,  II, 
pp.  1 13  sqq. 

33  In  Matth.,  18,  8;  In  loan.,  6, 
35- 

34  ttoWti  fi\aa<pri(ios  &voca.  T)e 
Recta  in  Deum  Fide ,  I,  27  (Migne, 
P.  G.,  XI,  1756  sq.). 

35  Cfr.  Riviere-Cappadelta,  Tho 
Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  Vol.  II, 
pp.  124  sqq. 


53 


THE  ROLE  OF  THE  DEVIL 

Son.”  38  There  was  a  modicum  of  truth  in  Origen’s  the¬ 
ory.  By  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  Satan  had  become, 
not  indeed  the  absolute  master  of  the  human  race,  but  the 
instrument  of  divine  wrath.37  But  when  Jesus  Christ, 
who  was  the  Mediator  between  God  and  the  human  race, 
gave  adequate  satisfaction  to  the  offended  Deity,  the  reign 
of  the  Devil  ceased.  Very  properly,  therefore,  does  St. 
Augustine  38  attribute  our  release  from  the  captivity  of 
Satan  to  the  sacrificial  character  of  Christ’s  death  on 
the  Cross  and  His  triumph  over  Satan  to  righteous¬ 
ness  rather  than  might.  “  It  pleased  God,”  he  says, 
“  that  in  order  to  the  rescuing  of  man  from  the  power  of 
the  Devil,  the  Devil  should  be  conquered,  not  by  might, 
but  by  righteousness.  .  .  .  What,  then,  is  the  righteous¬ 
ness  by  which  the  Devil  was  conquered?  What,  except 
the  righteousness  of  Christ?  In  this  redemption  the 
blood  of  Christ  was  given,  as  it  were,  as  a  price  for 
us,  by  accepting  which  the  Devil  was  not  enriched,  but 
bound,  that  we  might  be  loosed  from  his  bonds.” 39 
Hence,  the  redemption  of  man  from  the  clutches  of 
Satan  did  not  “  enrich  ”  our  arch-enemy  but  enslaved 
him,  since  the  demands  of  righteousness  were  fulfilled. 
It  was  St.  Bernard  of  Clairvaux  who  first  developed  this 
thought  into  the  formal  notion  of  vicarious  atonement. 
“  The  prince  of  this  world  came  and  found  nothing  in 
the  Saviour,”  he  writes ;  “  and  when  he  nevertheless 
laid  hands  upon  the  innocent  one,  he  rightly  lost  those 
who  were  his  captives,  when  He  who  owed  nothing  to 
death,  accepting  the  injury  of  death,  rightly  released  him 
who  was  guilty  of  sin,  both  from  the  debt  of  death  and 

36  De  Agno  Paschali,  22.  teaching  of  St.  Augustine  cfr. 

37  Cfr.  John  XII,  31;  XIV,  30;  2  Riviere-Cappadelta,  op.  cit.,  II,  146 

Cor.  IV,  4;  Heb.  II,  14.  sqq. 

88  De  Trinit IV,  13. —  On  the  39  De  Trinit .,  XIII,  13,  14,  15. 


54 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


the  power  of  the  Devil.  By  what  justice  could  this  have 
been  exacted  from  man,  since  it  was  man  who  owed  and 
man  who  paid  the  debt?  For  ‘  if  one  died  for  all/  [says 
the  Apostle,  2  Cor.  V,  14],  ‘  then  all  were  dead’:  that, 
namely,  the  satisfaction  of  one  be  imputed  to  all  .  .  .  be¬ 
cause  the  one  head  and  body  is  Christ.  The  head  there¬ 
fore  gave  satisfaction  for  the  members,  Christ  for  His 
bowels.”  40  Abelard,  and  especially  St.  Anselm,  at  length 
delivered  theology  from  “  a  decaying  doctrine  which  was 
now  superfluous,  if  not  actually  dangerous.” 41  The 
abuse-of-power  theory  made  way  for  St.  Anselm’s  for¬ 
ensic  theory  of  satisfaction,  which,  after  having  been 
purged  of  its  harsher  features  by  St.  Thomas,  became 
the  common  teaching  of  the  Schoolmen. 

Theology  has  a  right,  nay  the  duty,  to  subject  this 
theory,  both  in  its  original  Patristic  form  and  in  the 
shape  which  it  assumed  under  the  hands  of  the  medieval 
Scholastics,  to  respectful  criticism.  We  do  not  deny  that 
the  theory  may  be  defensible  within  certain  carefully  de¬ 
fined  limits.  But  as  onesidedly  developed  by  the  Scholas¬ 
tics,  it  does  not  embody  the  whole  truth  which  we  are  able 
to  gather  from  Divine  Revelation.  Revelation  contains 
certain  seed-thoughts  which  the  Fathers  and  Schoolmen 
failed  to  appreciate  at  their  full  value.  The  sacrifice  of 
the  Divine  Logos  was  dictated  by  infinite  love  and  mercy 
as  well  as  by  strict  justice.  Cfr.  John  III,  16:  “God 

40  **  V enit  princeps  huius  tnundi  Nam  si  unns  ( inquit )  pro  omnibus 
et  in  Salvatore  non  invenit  quid -  mortuus  est,  ergo  onmes  mortui  sunt 
quam.  Et  quum  nihilominus  inno-  ( 2  Cor.  V,  14)  :  ut  videlicet  satisf ac¬ 
cents  manus  iniecit,  iustissime  quos  tio  unius  omnibus  imputetur  .  .  . 
tenebat  amisit,  quando  is  qui  morti  quia  caput  et  corpus  unus  est 
nihil  debebat,  accepta  mortis  iniuria  Christus.  Satisfecit  ergo  caput  pro 
iure  ilium,  qui  obnoxius  erat,  et  membris,  Christus  pro  visceribus 
mortis  debit o  et  diaboli  solvit  do *  suis.”  De  Erroribus  Abaelardi,  cap. 
minio.  Qua  enim  iustitia  id  secundo  6. 

ah  homine  exigeretur ?  Homo  si-  41  Riviere-Cappadelta,  op.  fit.,  II, 
quidem  qui  debuit,  homo  qui  solvit.  220. 


SATISFACTION  AND  MERIT 


55 


so  loved  the  world  as  to  give  his  only  begotten  Son.”  42 
God  must  not  be  conceived  as  an  angry  tyrant,  who  un¬ 
mercifully  slays  his  Son  in  order  to  avenge  himself  on 
the  human  race  and  thereby,  as  it  were,  to  gratify  the 
Devil,  who  gloats  over  the  misfortune  of  others.  God  is 
just,  but  He  is  also  a  loving  Father,  who  punishes  His 
wayward  children  in  the  person  of  His  beloved  Son  to 
show  them  the  malice  of  sin  by  a  terrible  example.  In 
other  words,  we  cannot  harmonize  all  the  revealed  ele¬ 
ments  of  the  atonement  unless  we  give  due  emphasis  to 
the  ethical  factor.  The  purely  forensic  theory  of  satis¬ 
faction  must  be  supplemented  and  deepened  by  the  “  ethi¬ 
cal  theory  of  reconciliation,”  which  accentuates  God’s  love 
for  Christ  and  the  human  race,  and  also  the  moral  purpose 
of  the  Redemption,  i.  e.,  the  internal  redemption  of  man 
by  regeneration  in  God.  Thus  only  shall  we  be  able  to 
refute  the  objections  —  more  or  less  well  founded  — 
which  Harnack 43  and  Pfleiderer 44  have  raised  against 
the  theory  of  satisfaction  championed  by  the  Scholas¬ 
tics,  notably  St.  Anselm. 

4.  The  Distinction  Between  “Satisfac¬ 
tion”  and  “Merit.” — Entitatively  considered, 
an  act  of  satisfaction  may  also  be  a  meritorious 
act.  Nevertheless  there  is  both  a  logical  and  a 
real  distinction  between  satisfaction  and  merit  as 
such.  Satisfaction,  in  the  narrower  sense  of  the 
term,  is  reparation  made  for  an  offence,  while 
merit  may  be  defined  as  a  good  work  performed 

42  Cfr.  also  Eph.  I,  3  sqq.,  II,  4  44  Religionsphilosophie ,  Vol.  II, 

sqq.;  Tit.  Ill,  4  sq.,  and  1  Pet.  I,  3.  2nd  ed.,  Berlin  1884,  pp.  467  sqq. 

43  Grundriss  der  Dogmengeschich- 
te,  4th  ed.,  pp.  304  sqq. 


56 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


for  the  benefit  of  another  and  entitled  to  a  re¬ 
ward.45  Satisfaction  supposes  a  creditor  who 
insists  on  receiving  his  just  dues,  merit  a  debtor 
bound  to  give  a  reward.  If  the  reward  is  a 
matter  of  justice,  we  have  a  meritum  de  condi gno, 
if  it  is  merely  a  matter  of  equity,  a  meritum  de 
congruo. 

The  merits  of  Christ  may  be  regarded  from  a 
fourfold  point  of  view :  ( i )  As  to  their  reality, 

(2)  as  to  the  time  when  they  were  acquired,  (3) 
as  to  their  object  or  purpose,  and  (4)  as  to  the 
scope  of  their  application. 

a)  It  is  an  article  of  faith  that  the  Redeemer 
gained  merits  for  us. 

Christ,  says  the  Tridentine  Council,  “merited  justifi¬ 
cation  for  us  by  His  most  holy  Passion  on  the  wood  of 
the  Cross.”  The  same  sacred  Council  employs  the  phrase : 
“  Per  meritum  tinius  mediatoris  Domini  nostri  Ie'su 
Christi  ”  and  anathematizes  those  who  say,  “  Homines 
sine  Christi  iustitia,  per  qnam  nobis  meruit  iiistificcvri , 
aut  per  earn  ipsam  formaliter  iustos  esse.” 46  Isaias 
regarded  the  Redemption  as  a  meritorious  work.  Is. 
LIII,  10:  “And  the  Lord  was  pleased  to  bruise  him 
in  infirmity :  if  he  shall  lay  down  his  life  for  sin,  he 
shall  see  a  long-lived  seed  [i.  e.,  spiritual  progeny]  and 
the  will  of  the  Lord  shall  be  prosperous  in  his  hand.” 
Here  satisfaction  and  merit  are  so  nearly  alike  as  to  be 

45  "Meritum  est  opus  bonum  in  Sess.  V,  can.  3;  Sess.  VI,  can.  10. 

favor em  alterius  mercede  vel  praemio  Cfr.  Denzinger-Bannwart,  Enchiri- 
dignum.”  dion,  n.  799,  790,  820. 

46  Cone.  Trtd.,  Sess.  VI,  cap.  7; 


THE  MERITS  OF  CHRIST 


57 


materially  identical;  the  Redeemer  laid  God  under  ob¬ 
ligation  while  satisfying  His  just  claims.  But  since  He 
merited  not  only  grace  for  us,  but  likewise  extrinsic 
glory  for  Himself,  His  merits  exceed  the  limits  of  the 
satisfaction  which  He  gave  to  His  Heavenly  Father,  be¬ 
cause  He  did  not  need  to  give  any  satisfaction  for  Him¬ 
self. 

b)  When  did  Christ  perform  His  meritorious 
actions?  In  attempting  to  answer  this  question 
we  must  distinguish  between  the  terminus  a  quo 
and  the  terminus  ad  quern. 

Our  Lord  performed  no  meritorious  actions  (in  the 
technical  sense  of  the  term)  outside  of  the  period  of  His 
earthly  pilgrimage  ( status  viae).  Hence  the  terminus  ad 
quem  was  the  moment  of  His  death.47  That  this  is  the 
teaching  of  Holy  Scripture  may  be  gathered  from  such 
texts  as  John  IX,  4  sq. ;  Heb.  IX,  12,  X,  11  sqq.  True, 
St.  Paul  teaches  that  the  glorified  Redeemer  continues  to 
“  make  intercession  for  us  in  Heaven.” 48  But  the  in¬ 
tercession  He  makes  for  us  in  Heaven  is  based  on  the 
merits  which  He  gained  on  earth  and  aims  solely  at  the 
application  of  these  merits  to  individual  men. 

Which  was  the  terminus  a  quo  of  our  Lord’s  merito¬ 
rious  actions?  A  man  cannot  perform  any  meritorious 
deeds  before  he  has  attained  to  the  full  use  of  reason  and 
free-will,  which  generally  occurs  about  the  seventh  year. 
In  the  Godman  Jesus  Christ,  human  consciousness  awoke 
when  the  Godhead  became  hypostatically  united  with 
manhood,  that  is  to  say,  at  the  instant  of  His  concep- 

47  The  question  whether  this  limi-  to  an  intestine  necessity,  is  purely 
tation  of  Christ’s  meritorious  action  speculative,  and  will  be  discussed  in 
is  based  upon  a  positive  and  free  Eschatology. 

decree  of  God,  or  whether  it  is  due  48  Rom.  VIII,  34;  Heb.  VII,  25. 


58 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


tion.49  Hence  the  terminus  a  quo  of  His  meritorious 
actions  was  the  first  moment  of  His  existence  as  God- 
man.50 

c)  The  principal  object  of  Christ’s  meritorious 
actions  was  the  justification  of  sinners. 

It  is  an  article  of  faith  that  our  Divine  Saviour 
merited  for  us  the  forgiveness  of  all  sins,  including 
original  sin,  and,  in  addition,  sanctifying  grace.  That  the 
actual  graces  required  for  and  during  the  process  of 
justification  also  flow  from  the  thesaurus  of  Christ’s 
merits,  is  a  theologically  certain  conclusion.51  Capreolus 
denied  it ; 52  but  the  Tridentine  Council,  in  teaching, 
“  Ipsius  iustificationis  exordium  in  adultis  a  Dei  per 
Christum  Iesum  praeveniente  gratia  sumendum  esse,” 
evidently  employs  the  phrase  “  per  Christum  Iesum  ”  in 
the  sense  of  “  per  meritum  Christi  Iesu  !’  It  is  likewise 
an  article  of  faith  that  man,  in  the  state  of  grace  which 
follows  justification,  receives  all  the  graces  and  merits 
which  come  to  him  solely  from  the  treasury  of  the  merits 
of  Jesus  Christ.53  Our  Lord  Himself  inculcates  this  by 
the  parable  of  the  vine  and  its  branches.54 

Christ  also  merited  a  reward  for  Himself,  which  con¬ 
sists  chiefly  in  His  extrinsic  glorification  after  death. 
Cfr.  Luke  XXIV,  26 :  "  Nonne  haec  oportuit  pati  Chri¬ 
stum  et  ita  intrare  in  gloriam  suamf  —  Ought  not  Christ 
to  have  suffered  these  things,  and  so  to  enter  into  his 
glory?”  Phil.  II,  9:  “ Propter  quod  et  Deus  exaltavit 

ilium  et  donavit  illi  nomen,  quod  est  super  omne  nomen  — 

49  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology,  53  Cfr.  Cone.  Trident.,  Sess.  VI, 
pp.  259  sqq.  cap.  16;  Sess.  XIV,  cap.  8.  (Den¬ 
so  Cfr.  Heb.  X,  5.  zinger-Bannwart,  n.  809,  904.) 

51  Cfr.  2  Tim.  I,  9.  54  John  XV,  5.  On  the  grace  of 

52  Cfr.  F.  Stentrup,  Soteriologia,  predestination  cfr.  St.  Thomas,  S. 

thes.  36.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  19,  art.  3. 


THE  MERITS  OF  CHRIST 


59 


For  which  cause  God  also  exalted  him,  and  hath  given 
him  a  name  which  is  above  all  names.”  Heb.  II,  9: 
“  Videmus  Iesum  propter  passionem  mortis  gloria  et 
honor e  coronatum  —  We  see  Jesus  .  .  .  for  the  suffering 
of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and  honor.”  It  is  conse¬ 
quently  unscriptural  to  hold,  as  Calvin  did,  that  Christ’s 
love  for  the  human  race  prompted  Him  to  waive  all 
claims  to  His  own  honor.65 

In  determining  the  scope  of  Christ’s  merits,  Saint 
Thomas  proceeds  as  follows :  “  Since  every  perfection 

and  noble  quality  must  be  attributed  to  Christ,  it  follows 
that  He  possessed  by  merit  whatever  others  possess 
by  merit,  unless  it  be  something  which  would  detract 
from  His  dignity  and  perfection  more  than 
could  be  gained  by  merit.” 56  Hence,  he  continues, 
“  Christ  merited  neither  grace,  nor  knowledge,  nor  beati¬ 
tude  of  soul,  nor  Divinity  (i.  e.}  the  Hypostatic  Union). 
As  only  that  can  be  merited  which  one  does  not  yet  pos¬ 
sess,  Christ  would  have  lacked  all  these  perfections, 
and  therefore  it  is  plain  that  He  merited  only  such  things 
as  the  glory  of  the  body,  and  whatever  pertains  to  its 
extrinsic  excellence,  e.  g.,  the  ascension,  adoration,  etc.”  57 

d)  The  question:  Who  participates  in  the  merits  of 
Christ?  coincides  with  that  regarding  the  universality 
of  the  atonement,  which  we  shall  treat  below,  Sect.  2,  Art. 
2. 58 


55  Cfr.  Bellarmine,  De  Christo,  V, 
8-10. 

66  S'.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  19,  art.  3. 

67  l.  c. —  Cfr.  Simar,  Lehrbuch  der 
Dogmatik,  Vol.  I,  4th  ed.,  pp.  532 
sqq.,  Freiburg  1899. 


68  On  the  whole  subject  dealt  with 
in  this  subdivision  of  our  treatise 
consult  Pesch,  Praelectiones  Dog- 
maticae,  Vol.  IV,  3rd  ed.,  pp.  252 
sqq.,  Friburgi  1909. 


5 


SECTION  2 

THE  PROPERTIES  OF  CHRIST’S  VICARIOUS  ATONE¬ 
MENT 

ARTICLE  i 

INTRINSIC  PERFECTION  OF  THE  ATONEMENT 

Christ’s  vicarious  atonement  is  intrinsically  perfect  and 
comprises  within  its  scope  all  sins  and  all  sinners. 

The  intrinsic  perfection  of  Christ’s  vicarious  atone¬ 
ment  manifests  itself  in  three  ascending  stages,  which 
are  technically  called  adequacy,  rigorousness,  and  super¬ 
abundance. 

By  adequate  atonement  we  understand  a  satisfaction 
which  completely  and  fully  repairs  the  offence  com¬ 
mitted,  or,  at  least,  is  accepted  as  a  full  reparation  by 
the  person  offended.  If  the  satisfaction  rendered  is  of 
such  high  intrinsic  merit  that  the  offended  person  is  in 
justice  compelled  to  accept  it,  it  is  called  rigorous.  If 
it  exceeds  the  offence  committed,  it  is  superabundant. 

Thesis  I:  The  satisfaction  which  Christ  made  for 
our  sins  was  adequate,  i.  e.,  fully  sufficient. 

This  thesis  embodies  the  common  teaching  of 
a  majority  of  Catholic  theologians. 

Proof.  The  reality  of  Christ’s  vicarious 
atonement  is  an  article  of  faith,  with  which  we 

60 


ADEQUACY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT  61 


have  already  dealt  {supra,  Sect.  i).  In  the 
present  thesis  we  are  merely  concerned  with  its 
intrinsic  properties.  As  the  Church  has  never 
defined  these,  the  Scotists  were  free  to  estimate 
them  differently  than  the  majority  of  Catholic 
divines. 

The  Scotists  and  the  Nominalists  hold  that  Christ’s 
vicarious  atonement  derives  its  adequacy  not  from  its 
own  intrinsic  merit,  but  from  the  accidental  circumstance 
of  its  “extrinsic  acceptation”  by  God.  Suarez  rejects 
this  theory  as  “  neither  probable,  nor  pious,  nor  suffi¬ 
ciently  in  accordance  with  the  faith.”  1  This  is  a  per¬ 
fectly  just  criticism,  since  both  Holy  Scripture  and 
Tradition  declare  that  the  satisfaction  which  Christ  made 
for  us  was  equivalent  to  the  offence  inherent  in  sin. 

a)  Holy  Scripture  distinctly  declares  that  we 
were  “bought”  with  a  “price,”  2  and  that  this 
price  was  the  Precious  Blood  of  our  Lord.  Cfr. 
i  Pet.  I,  18  sq. :  “.  .  .  you  were  not  redeemed 

with  corruptible  things,  .  .  .  but  with  the  pre¬ 
cious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  unspotted  and 
undefiled.”  How  could  the  blood  of  Christ  be 
called  “precious”  if  its  value  was  not  equiva¬ 
lent  to  the  offence  for  the  reparation  of  which 
it  was  shed?  St.  Paul  says:  “You  are  bought 
with  a  great  price.”  3  This  phrase  likewise  indi¬ 
cates  that  the  satisfaction  given  by  our  Divine  Re¬ 
deemer  was  equivalent  to  the  guilt  of  sin. 

1  De  Incarn.,  disp.  4,  sect.  3,  n.  it.  3  Pretio  tnagno,  Ttfirjs.  1  Cor. 

2  Pretium,  \vrpov.  VI,  20. 


62 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


Moreover,  the  Bible  tells  us  that  the  Godman  im¬ 
molated  Himself  in  expiation  for  our  sins. 
Hence  the  satisfaction  He  gave  to  Elis  Heavenly 
Father  must  be  of  equal  value  with  Himself,  and 
therefore,  to  say  the  least,  adequate.  Cfr.  I 
Tim.  II,  5  sq. :  'There  is  one  God,  and  one 
mediator  of  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus: 
who  gave  himself  a  redemption  for  all  (<WAv- 
rP°v).”  The  graphic  term  <WAvrpov ?  which  St. 
Paul  here  employs  instead  of  plain  A vrpovf  shows 
that  he  conceives  "the  redemption  for  all”  as  a 
full  equivalent  for  sin.  “Quanta  iniuria,  tanta 
satisfaction  In  fact,  it  is  only  in  this  hypothe¬ 
sis  that  we  can  understand  why  the  Apostle 
attaches  such  tremendous  importance  to  the 
singleness  of  our  Lord’s  sacrifice  on  the  Cross,  in 
contradistinction  to  the  multiplicity  of  the  inef¬ 
fective  offerings  of  the  Levites.  Cfr.  Eleb.  IX, 
12  and  28:  "By  his  own  blood  he  entered  once  4 
into  the  holies,  having  obtained  eternal  redemp¬ 
tion.  ...  So  also  Christ  was  offered  once  5  to 
exhaust  the  sins  of  many.” 

b)  Patristic  texts  in  support  of  our  thesis  will 
be  found  infra,  p.  71.  A  convincing  theologi¬ 
cal  argument  for  the  adequacy  of  the  atone¬ 
ment  may  be  deduced  from  the  concept  of  our 
Lord’s  natural  mediatorship  {supra,  Ch.  I,  Sect. 

0- 

4  Semel,  #7raf. 


6  Semel,  aira£. 


ADEQUACY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT  63 


a)  By  virtue  of  the  Hypostatic  Union  all  hu¬ 
man  actions  of  the  Godman  are  infinitely  valuable 
in  the  eyes  of  God,  independently  of  their  ex¬ 
trinsic  acceptation,  because  a  theandric  merit  de¬ 
rives  its  full  value  solely  from  the  infinite  dignity 
of  the  Logos.6  But  an  atonement,  the  expiatory 
power  of  which  is,  morally  considered,  infinite, 
cannot  be  conceived  otherwise  than  as  adequate. 

P)  The  Scotists  and  the  Nominalists  are  con¬ 
sequently  in  error  when  they  teach  that  the  meri¬ 
torious  and  expiatory  value  of  Christ’s  vicarious 
atonement,  though  extrinsically  infinite  because 
of  its  benevolent  acceptation  on  the  part  of  God,7 
is  not  so  intrinsically,  i.  e.,  on  account  of  its  own 
immanent  worth.8  Scotus’  own  teaching  on  this 
point  is  uncertain.9  But  the  great  majority  of 
Scotist  theologians,  including  such  later  authors 
as  Frassen,  De  Rada,  and  Henno,  undoubtedly 
underestimated  the  meritoriousness  of  Christ’s 
theandric  operation  by  asserting  that  it  became 
infinitely  valuable  only  through  the  condescension 
of  God  in  deigning  to  accept  it  as  such.  The  Sco¬ 
tists  admit  that  Christ’s  human  actions,  because 
performed  by  the  exalted  person  of  the  Godman, 
were  invested  with  a  certain  equitable  claim  to 

6  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology,  9  Scotus,  Comment,  in  Quatuor 

pp.  161  sqq.  Libros  Sent.,  Ill,  dist.  19.  Hauzeur 

7  Infinitas  extrinseca  ob  benignam  and  a  few  other  Scotists  attempted 

Dei  acceptationevn.  to  reconcile  their  master’s  teaching 

8  Infinitas  intrinseca  ob  valorem  with  the  sententia  communis,  but  in 

innatutn .  rain, 


64 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


be  received  as  of  infinite  value  by  a  loving  God; 
but  they  deny  that  these  actions  can  by  their  own 
power  attain  to  infinitude.  This  they  declare 
to  be  impossible  because  these  actions  are  essen¬ 
tially  the  product  of  a  finite  (human)  nature. 
As  the  intrinsic  or  bullion  value  of  a  coin  need 
not  equal  the  extrinsic  valuation  stamped  upon 
its  face,  they  say,  so  the  human  actions  of  our 
Saviour  were  in  themselves  of  a  merely  finite 
value,  but  capable  of  being  raised  to  a  higher  valu¬ 
ation  by  God. 

Mastrius  and  a  few  others  restrict  the  Scotistic 
theory  to  the  thesis  (which  no  one  denies)  that, 
to  render  His  atonement  valid  in  actu  secundo, 
our  Divine  Saviour  had  first  to  assure  Himself 
of  its  acceptation  on  the  part  of  God,  not  indeed 
per  modum  principii  di guide  antis,  but  per  modum 
conditionis  praeviae .  This  is  beside  the  question. 
What  the  Scotists  assert  is  that  the  satisfaction 
which  Christ  made  for  our  sins  was  intrin¬ 
sically  insufficient  or  inadequate,  and  that  what 
it  lacked  in  intrinsic  merit  was  supplied  by 
God's  extrinsic  acceptation.  Their  basic  error 
consists  in  this  that  they  fail  to  distinguish  be¬ 
tween  the  physical  entity  and  the  ethical  value  of 
Christ's  meritorious  actions,  confounding  the 
finite  character  of  the  former  with  the  infinity  of 
the  latter.  Justly,  therefore,  do  the  Thomists  10 


10  Cfr.  Billuart,  De  Incarn.,  diss.  19,  art.  5. 


ADEQUACY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT  65 


insist  that  the  Hypostatic  Union  endows  a  phys¬ 
ically  finite  act  with  a  morally  infinite  value,  be¬ 
cause  it  is  the  infinite  Divine  Person  that  performs 
that  act  as  principium  quod ,  employing  the  finite 
nature  merely  as  principium  quo .  Were  we  to 
trace  the  Scotist  theory  to  its  sources,  we  should 
probably  find  that  its  originators  had  no  clear  con¬ 
ception  of  the  character  of  theandric  operation 
and  misconceived  the  true  nature  and  scope  of 
the  Hypostatic  Union.11 

Thesis  II:  The  satisfaction  which  Christ  made  for 
our  sins  was  not  only  adequate,  but  rigorous,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  standard  of  strict  justice. 

Proof.  In  the  preceding  thesis  we  saw  that 
Christ’s  vicarious  atonement  was  quantitatively 
adequate,  i.  e.,  equivalent  to  all  the  sins  of  man¬ 
kind.  We  have  now  to  show  that  it  was  ade¬ 
quate  also  in  quality,  i.  e.,  measured  by  the  stand¬ 
ard  of  strict  justice  ( secundum  rigorem  iustitiae ). 

In  other  words,  it  was  not  necessary  for  God’s  mercy 
to  supply  anything  over  and  above  the  satisfaction  ren¬ 
dered  by  Christ,  since  this  satisfaction  fully  covered  all 
just  claims. 

This  thesis  does  not  embody  an  article  of  faith.  It  is 
not  even  a  theological  conclusion.  But  it  voices  the 

11  On  the  uncertain  teaching  of  gen,  1907,  pp.  241  sqq.  On  the 
Scotus  cfr.  P.  Minges,  O.  F.  M.,  general  subject  of  this  thesis  cfr. 
Compend.  Theol.  Dogmat.  Specialis,  also  De  Lugo,  De  Myst.  Incarn., 
Vol.  I,  pp.  213  sqq.,  Monachii  1901;  disp.  6,  sect.  1;  Scheeben,  Dog- 
Theologische  Quartalschrift,  Tiibin-  matik,  Vol.  Ill,  §251,  Freiburg  1882. 


66 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


more  general  teaching  of  Catholic  divines,  especially  of 
the  Thomist  school,  and  of  Suarez,  Tanner,  Gregory  of 
Valentia,  Franzelin,  and  others.  In  a  limited  way  we 
may  also  number  among  its  defenders  those  Scotist  the¬ 
ologians  who,  like  Mastrius,  admit  that  the  atonement 
satisfied  divine  justice,  though  not  to  its  full  extent. 

a)  It  pertains  to  the  dogmatic  treatise  De  Deo 
Uno 12  to  show  that  the  only  kind  of  relation 
possible  between  God  and  His  creatures  is  a 
free  but  real  relation  of  rights  and  duties  based 
upon  the  veracity  and  fidelity  of  the  Creator. 
Christ’s  vicarious  atonement  embodies  all  the  con¬ 
ditions  necessary  and  sufficient  to  establish  a  re¬ 
lation  of  strict  and  rigorous  justice.  These  con¬ 
ditions  are  five  in  number,  to  wit:  (a)  Equiva¬ 
lence  of  debit  and  credit;  (P)  difference  of  person 
between  debtor  and  creditor;  (y)  payment  of  the 
debt  out  of  the  debtor’s  own  means;  (8)  absence 
of  all  other  indebtedness;  («)  payment  of  the  debt 
in  person  or  through  a  bondsman.  These  condi¬ 
tions  are  selected  somewhat  arbitrarily,  and  it  is 
not  easy  to  prove  that  Christ  fulfilled  them  all 
For  this  reason  some  theologians  prefer  not  to 
speak  of  a  rigor  iastitiae.  However,  the  senten- 
tia  communior  rests  on  fairly  solid  ground. 

a)  That  Christ  fulfilled  the  first  of  the  conditions 
enumerated  was  shown  in  Thesis  I. 

p)  Condition  number  two  demands  that  debtor  and 


12  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  God:  His  Knowability,  Essence  and  Attributes, 

PP.  457  sqq. 


ADEQUACY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT  67 


creditor  must  be  separate  and  distinct  persons.  “Satis-* 
f actio  debet  esse  ad  alterum  ”  No  one  can  be  his  own 
debtor.  How  could  Christ  fulfil  this  condition?  Since 
He  is  Himself  God,  is  it  not  physically  the  same  person 
that  merits  and  rewards  ?  This  difficulty  cannot  be  solved 
by  the  retort  that  Christ  renders  satisfaction  to  God  the 
Father.  Humanity’s  creditor  was  not  the  Father  alone, 
but  the  whole  Trinity.13  The  right  solution  seems  to  be 
this:  In  atoning  for  our  sins,  Christ  acts  both  as  man 
and  as  God,  and  hence  makes  satisfaction  virtually  as  a 
double  person:  (1)  the  man  Jesus  makes  satisfaction  to 
God  for  our  sins  in  His  human  nature,  as  if  He  were  a 
different  person  from  the  Logos ;  (2)  The  Logos,  as  God, 
accepts  this  satisfaction.  If  Christ,  as  man,  was  able  to 
practice  the  virtues  of  obedience  and  worship  towards 
Himself  as  God,  it  can  be  no  contradiction  to  say  that, 
as  man,  He  gave  satisfaction  to  Himself,  qua  God,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  strict  measure  of  justice. 

We  must,  however,  beware  of  misinterpreting  the  ex¬ 
pression  duplex  persona  moralis ,  as  Berruyer  (a  pupil  of 
Hardouin)  did  when  he  asserted  that  the  humanity  of  our 
Lord  was  a  quasi-sup positum,  to  which,  as  to  a  distinct 
human  person,  must  be  ascribed  certain  actions  of  Christ 
which  had  no  intrinsic  hypostatic  connexion  with  the  Per¬ 
son  of  the  Logos.14 

y)  The  third  of  the  conditions  enumerated  above  is 


18  “What  does  it  mean  to  be  the 
mediator  between  God  and  men?” 
asks  St.  Augustine,  and  answers  the 
question  as  follows:  “It  means  to 
be  a  mediator  not  between  the 
Father  and  men,  but  between  God 
and  men.  What  is  God?  He  is 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  .  .  . 
Christ  was  constituted  mediator  be¬ 
tween  this  Trinity  and  the  infirmity 


and  iniquity  of  men.”  Ennar.  in 
Ps.,  2g,  2,  1. 

14  On  this  dangerous  error  see 
Legrand,  De  Incarn.,  diss.  1 1,  Paris 
i860;  von  Schazler,  Das  Dogma  von 
der  Menschwerdung  Gottes,  §24, 
Freiburg  1870;  Scheeben,  Dogmatik, 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  29  sqq.,  Freiburg  1882; 
B.  Dorholt,  Die  Lehre  von  der  Ge- 
nugtuung  Christi,  pp.  435  sqq.,  Pa- 
derborn  1891. 


68 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


that  the  debtor  must  pay  his  liability  out  of  his  own  be¬ 
longings.  “  Satisf  actio  debet  fieri  ex  bonis  propriis.” 
Did  Christ  fulfil  this  condition?  As  He  was  a  man,  His 
power  of  giving  satisfaction  for  our  sins  (vis  merendi  sive 
satisf aciendi)  must  have  been  a  grace,  i.  e.,  a  free  gift 
of  God,  and  consequently  the  atonement  cannot  have 
been  a  payment  made  by  Him  out  of  His  own  means. 
Even  the  supernatural  merits  of  a  justified  man,  being  due 
to  pure  grace,  cannot  satisfy  rigorous  justice.  Indeed  we 
may  broadly  say  that,  as  man  possesses  nothing  of  his  own, 
but  has  received  everything  he  has  from  God,  whether  by 
creation  or  by  grace,  so  Christ’s  human  nature,  which  was 
the  principium  quo  of  His  meritorious  and  expiatory  ac¬ 
tion,  was  not  His  own  but  a  gift  of  the  debtor,  i.  e.,  God. 

This  objection  may  be  met  as  follows:  It  was  not  the 
man  Jesus,  but  the  Godman,  whose  meritorious  actions 
made  satisfaction  for  our  sins.  In  other  words,  not  the 
human  nature  of  Christ  as  such  made  satisfaction,  but  the 
Divine  Logos  through  the  functions  of  His  human  na¬ 
ture,  which,  by  virtue  of  the  Hypostatic  Union,  is  so  inti¬ 
mately  united  to  the  Logos  that  He  possesses  and  governs 
it  with  absolute  sovereignty  as  its  sole  principium  quod. 
To  attribute  such  a  sovereign  control  over  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  to  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
i.  e.,  to  the  Trinity  qua  Godhead,  would  be  tantamount 
to  asserting  that  it  was  not  the  Logos  alone  who  was 
made  flesh,  but  the  whole  Blessed  Trinity.15'  But  this  is 
manifestly  repugnant.  The  human  nature  of  Christ  was 
the  personal  property  of  the  Logos,  and  the  satisfaction 
He  made  through  that  nature  was  made  ex  bonis  pro¬ 
priis.16 

B)  We  come  to  the  fourth  condition :  “  Satisf  actio 

U6  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology,  10  Cfr.  Ysambert,  De  Myst.  In- 
pp.  132  sqq.  earn.,  disp.  6,  art.  2-3,  Paris  1639. 


ADEQUACY  OF  THE  ATONEMENT  69 


debet  esse  ex  alias  indebitis”  Satisfaction  must  be 
made  by  means  of  something  which  the  debtor  does  not 
already  owe  to  his  creditor  on  some  other  account.  It 
may  be  argued  that  this  condition,  too,  remained  unful¬ 
filled  in  the  case  of  our  Divine  Saviour,  because  whatever 
He  did  and  suffered,  He  was  obliged  to  do  and  suffer 
for  reasons  other  than  that  prompting  the  atonement, 
such  as  gratitude  and  obedience  to  God,  a  feeling  of  de¬ 
pendence,  piety,  etc.  Can  an  action  to  which  one  is 
obliged  by  so  many  titles  be  in  strict  justice  regarded  as 
meritorious  ? 

Suarez  offers  two  solutions  of  this  difficulty.  ( 1 ) 
The  rigor  iustitiae,  he  says,  is  to  be  measured  purely  and 
solely  by  the  titulus  iustitiae.  Even  if  a  debtor  were  obli¬ 
gated  by  gratitude  towards  his  creditor,  he  would  never¬ 
theless  satisfy  rigorous  justice  as  soon  as  he  paid  the  last 
farthing  of  his  indebtedness.  Though  other  duties  re¬ 
mained,  justice  as  such  would  be  satisfied.  (2)  The 
intrinsic  merit  of  the  satisfaction  which  Christ  made 
for  our  sins  is  infinite,  and  as  such  capable  of  satisfying, 
not  merely  one  single  title  of  justice,  but  many,  nay,  an 
infinite  number  of  such  titles.  Consequently  justice  can 
be  rigorously  satisfied  even  though  there  are  other  titles 
and  duties. 

c)  The  last  condition  is  that  satisfaction  must  be  made 
by  the  debtor  for  himself.  “  Satisf actio  debet  fieri  pro 
se  ipso,  non  pro  alienis”  Strictly  speaking,  Christ  did 
not  fulfil  this  condition,  because  He  made  atonement  for 
others.  It  is  to  be  noted,  however,  that  the  rigor  iustitiae 
can  be  satisfied  by  proxy,  provided  the  substitute  is 
formally  accepted  by  the  creditor  and  the  proportion 
between  debt  and  reparation  is  strictly  observed.  Let  it 
not  be  objected  that  where  an  offence  has  been  committed 
the  offended  person  waives  his  claim  to  strict  justice  by 


7o 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


surrendering  his  right  to  personal  satisfaction.  He  does 
not  remit  the  debt,  nor  any  part  thereof,  but  merely  com¬ 
mutes  it  into  something  of  equal  value.17 


Thesis  III :  The  satisfaction  which  Christ  made 
for  our  sins  was  more  than  adequate  and  rigorous;  it 
was  superabundant. 


This  thesis  may  be  characterized  as  “  com¬ 
munis since  it  is  held  by  practically  all  theolog¬ 
ical  schools. 

Proof,  a)  A  Scriptural  argument  may  be 
drawn  from  St.  Paul’s  antithetical  sentences  in 
tracing  the  analogy  between  Adam  and  Christ. 
Cfr.  Rom.  V,  15:  “But  not  as  the  offence,  so 
also  the  gift.  For  if  by  the  offence  of  one  many 
died;  much  more  18  the  grace  of  God,  and  the 
gift,  by  the  grace  of  one  man,  Jesus  Christ,  hath 
abounded  unto  many.”  19  And  even  more  point¬ 
edly  Rom.  V,  20:  “Where  sin  abounded,20  grace 
did  more  abound.”  21  The  Apostle  here  distinctly 
asserts  that  Christ  gave  superabundant  satisfac¬ 
tion  for  our  sins.  The  sin  was  great,  but  the 
atonement  and  the  graces  flowing  therefrom  are 
still  greater.22 


17  Cfr.  on  the  subject  of  these 
conditions  and  their  fulfilment  by 
Christ:  Franzelin,  De  Verbo  Incarn., 
thes.  47,  Rome  1881  (new  edition, 
1910);  B.  Dorholt,  Die  Lehre  von 
der  Genugtuung  Christi,  pp.  424  sqq., 
Paderborn  1891;  Tepe,  Inst.  Theol., 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  639  sqq.,  Paris  1896. 


18  Multo  magis,  ttoWw  /JidWov. 

19  In  plures  abundavit,  els  robs 
ttoWovs  eireplaoevcev' 

20  Abundavit ,  iirXeovcLcrev . 

21  Superabundavit  gratia,  inrepe- 
irepLaaevaev  i]  %apis. 

22  Cfr.  Eph.  I,  3-8;  John  X,  10. 


THE  ATONEMENT  SUPERABUNDANT  71 


b)  The  Fathers  generally  held  that  the  ade¬ 
quacy  of  the  atonement  can  be  most  effectively 
demonstrated  from  its  superabundant  meritori¬ 
ousness. 

Thus  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  trenchantly  argues: 
“  He  who  died  for  us  was  of  no  less  value.  He  was 
not  a  visible  lamb,  no  mere  man,  nor  yet  an  angel, 
but  the  incarnate  God.  The  wickedness  of  sinners  was 
not  as  great  as  the  righteousness  of  Him  who  died  for 
us.  Our  sins  were  not  equal  to  the  justice  of  Him  who 
died  for  us.”  23  St.  Chrysostom  exemplifies  this  truth  as 
follows :  “  Our  experience  has  been  like  that  of  a  man 

who  was  cast  into  prison  with  his  wife  and  children  and 
servants  for  a  debt  of  ten  oboli,  and  another  man  came 
and  plumped  down  not  only  ten  oboli,  but  ten  thousand 
gold  talents,  and  then  led  the  prisoner  into  the  royal 
chamber,  placed  him  on  an  exalted  throne,  and  allowed 
him  to  share  in  the  highest  honors.  .  .  .  For  Christ  paid 
far  more  than  we  owed,  and  in  a  larger  measure,  like  as 
the  infinite  ocean  exceeds  in  magnitude  a  tiny  drop  of 
water.”  24 

c)  If  Christ’s  vicarious  atonement  was  super¬ 
abundantly  meritorious,  that  is  to  say,  far  in  ex¬ 
cess  of  the  sins  for  which  it  was  made,  its  intrin¬ 
sic  worth  must  have  been  actually  infinite.  This 
inference  is  demanded  by  all  the  rules  of  theolog¬ 
ical  logic,  and  hence  we  need  not  wonder  that 
Suarez  lays  it  down  as  the  common  teaching  of 

23  Catech.,  33,  c.  13.  Cfr.  also  B.  Dorholt,  Die  Lehre  von 

24  Horn,  in  Ep.  ad  Rom.,  10,  2.  der  Genugtuung  Christi,  pp.  376 
Additional  Patristic  texts  apud  Pe-  sqq.,  419  sqq. ;  Muth,  Die  Heilstat 
tav.,  XII,  9  and  Thomassin,  IX,  9.  Christi,  pp.  228  sqq. 


72 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


Catholic  divines  that  “the  actions  of  Christ  pos¬ 
sessed  a  value  which  was  absolutely  and  strictly 
infinite  in  making  satisfaction  and  acquiring 
merits  before  God.”  25 

a)  St.  Thomas  demonstrates  this  proposition  by  a  the¬ 
ological  argument  based  on  the  infinite  dignity  of  the  God- 
man.  “  The  dignity  of  Christ’s  flesh,”  he  says,  “  must  not 
be  estimated  solely  by  the  nature  of  the  flesh,  but  by  the 
assuming  person ;  it  was  the  flesh  of  God,  hence  its  dig¬ 
nity  is  infinite.”  26  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  intrinsic  moral 
value  of  an  action  varies  in  proportion  to  the  dignity 
of  him  who  performs  it,  and  therefore  the  actions  of  a 
person  of  infinite  dignity,  when  offered  in  satisfaction  for 
an  offence,  must  be  infinitely  meritorious. 

To  demonstrate  the  infinite  value  of  Christ’s  vicari¬ 
ous  atonement,  it  is  not  necessary  to  have  recourse  to 
its  superabundant  merit;  the  proposition  follows  as  a 
corollary  from  the  fact  of  its  mere  adequacy.  If  no 
one  but  a  Godman  was  able  to  give  adequate  satisfaction 
for  our  sins,  each  and  every  one  of  Christ’s  theandric 
actions,  even  the  most  insignificant,  must  have  been  suffi¬ 
cient,  nay  more  than  sufficient,  for  the  purposes  of  the 
atonement,  because  each-  and  every  action  performed  by 
a  Godman  is  by  its  very  nature  infinitely  meritorious. 

As  to  the  question,  why  the  meritorious  actions  of  our 
Lord  had  of  necessity  to  culminate  in  His  dolorous  pas¬ 
sion  and  death,  St.  Thomas  says :  “If  we  regard  the 
amount  paid  for  the  redemption  of  the  human  race,  any 
suffering  undergone  by  Christ,  even  without  death,  would 

25  “Opera  Christi  Domini  habuisse  tenableness  of  the  Scotistic  theory 
valorem  absolute  et  simpliciter  in -  of  extrinsic  acceptation  v.  supra , 
finitum  ad  satisfaciendum  et  meren -  pp.  63  sqq. 

dum  apud  Deum.”  De  Incarn.,  26  S'.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  48,  art.  2,  ad 
disp.  4,  sect.  4,  n.  3. — On  the  un-  3.  Cfr.  Suarez,  op.  cit.,  n.  17  sqq. 


THE  ATONEMENT  SUPERABUNDANT  73 


have  sufficed  for  the  redemption  of  the  human  race,  on 
account  of  the  infinite  dignity  of  His  person.  .  .  .  But 
if  we  regard  the  payment  of  the  price,  it  must  be  ob¬ 
served  that  no  other  suffering  less  than  Christ’s  death  was 
deemed  sufficient  by  God  the  Father  and  by  Christ  Him¬ 
self  to  redeem  the  human  race.”  27 


P)  That  the  satisfaction  which  Christ  made  for 
our  sins  was  infinite,  may  also  be  inferred  from 
certain  utterances  (though  they  are  not  ex-ca¬ 
thedra  decisions)  of  the  Holy  See.  Among  the 
propositions  of  Bajus  condemned  by  Pope  Pius  V 
in  the  year  1567  is  the  following:  “The  works 
of  justice  and  temperance  performed  by  Christ 
derived  no  additional  value  from  the  dignity  of 
His  person.” 28  Hence  it  is  Catholic  teaching 
that  the  actions  of  Christ  derived  a  higher  value 
from  the  “dignity  of  His  Person.”  How  high  is 
this  value  to  be  rated?  Evidently  it  must  have 
corresponded  to  the  infinite  dignity  of  the  God- 
man, — which  is  merely  another  way  of  saying  that 
it  was  infinite. 

A  far  more  important  pronouncement  for  our 
present  purpose  is  this  from  the  Bull  “Unigeni- 


27  "Si  ergo  loquamur  de  redemp- 
tione  humani  generis  quantum  ad 
quantitatem  pretii,  sic  quaelibet  pas- 
sio  Christi  etiam  sine  morte  suffecis- 
set  ad  redemptionem  humani  ge¬ 
neris  propter  infinitam  dignitatem 
personae  ...  Si  autem  loquamur 
quantum  ad  deputationem  pretii ,  sic 
dicendum  est  quod  non  sunt  depu- 
tatae  ad  redemptionem  humani  ge¬ 


neris  a  Deo  Patre  el  Christo  aliae 
passiones  Christi  absque  morte." 
Quodlib.  2,  art  2. — Cfr.  Dorholt,  op. 
cit.,  pp.  405  sqq. 

28  "Opera  iustitiae  et  temperan- 
tiae,  quas  Christus  fecit,  ex  dignitate 
personae  operantis  non  traxerunt 
maiorem  valorem.”  Prop.  19  (Den- 
zinger-Bannwart,  Enchiridion,  a. 
1019). 


74 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


tus”  of  Pope  Clement  VI,  A.  D.  1343:  “He  is 
known  to  have  shed,  not  a  little  drop  of  blood, — 
though  this  would  have  sufficed  for  the  redemp¬ 
tion  of  the  entire  human  race,  because  of  the  [Hy¬ 
postatic]  Union  with  the  Logos, — but  streams 
of  it,  like  unto  a  river.  .  .  .  That  the  mercy  in¬ 
volved  in  such  a  large  effusion  [of  blood]  be  not 
rendered  vain,  empty,  and  superfluous,  He  laid  up 
for  the  Church  militant  a  copious  treasure,  which 
the  good  Father  desires  to  dispense  to  his  children, 
in  order  that  it  may  become  an  infinite  store-house 
for  men,  and  that  those  who  make  use  of  it  may 
share  in  the  friendship  of  God.”  29  Pope  Clem¬ 
ent,  in  issuing  his  Bull,  did  not  intend  to  define 
the  dogmatic  teaching  of  the  Church  with  regard 
to  this  “infinite  treasure.”  Nor  does  the  document 
contain  any  clear  expression  as  to  whether  Christ’s 
merits  are  to  be  conceived  as  actually  or  po¬ 
tentially  infinite.  Hence  the  above-quoted  words 
cannot  be  said  to  constitute  a  binding  dogmatic 
definition.  We  may,  however,  safely  assume  that 
Clement  VI  intended  to  represent  the  treasure  of 
Christ’s  merits  as  actually  infinite,  for  this  is  the 
obvious  meaning  of  his  words,  considered  both  in 


29  "  Non  guttam  sanguinis  modi¬ 
cum,  quae  tamen  propter  unionem 
ad  Verbum  pro  redemptione  totius 
humani  generis  stiff ecisset,  sed  co- 
piose  velut  quoddam  profluvium  nos- 
citur  effudisse  .  .  .  Quantum  ergo 
exinde,  ut  nec  supervacua,  inanis  et 
superflua  tantae  effusionis  misera- 


tio  redderetur,  thesaurum  militanti 
Ecclesiae  acquisivit,  volens  suis 
thesaurizare  filiis  pius  Pater,  ut  sic 
sit  infinitus  thesaurus  hominibus, 
quo  qui  usi  sunt  Dei  amicitiae  par - 
ticipes  sunt  effecti ”  Denzingef 
Bannwart,  Enchiridion,  n.  550. 


CHRIST  DIED  FOR  ALL 


75 


themselves  and  in  connection  with  the  context. 

The  doctrine  of  the  superabundant  merits  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  His  Saints  forms  the  ground¬ 
work  of  the  Catholic  teaching  on  indulgences, 
which  we  shall  explain  more  fully  in  a  later 
volume  of  this  series.30 

ARTICLE  2 

EXTRINSIC  PERFECTION  OR  UNIVERSALITY  OF  THE 

ATONEMENT 

If,  as  we  have  shown  in  the  preceding  Article,  the 
satisfaction  made  for  our  sins  by  Christ  was  intrinsically 
perfect,  there  is  a  priori  ground  for  assuming  that  it 
must  have  embraced  all  men  without  exception.  In  mat¬ 
ter  of  fact  the  universality  of  the  atonement  objectively 
coincides  with  the  universality  of  God’s  will  to  save  the 
entire  human  race  ( voluntas  salvifica ),  Here  we  shall 
merely  touch  upon  a  few  important  points  bearing  on  the 
Redemption. 

Thesis  I:  Christ  died  for  all  the  faithful,  not  only 
for  the  predestined. 

This  proposition  is  strictly  de  fide. 

Proof.  The  predestined  are  those  who  actu¬ 
ally  attain  to  eternal  salvation.  Of  the  “faith¬ 
ful,”  i.  e.,  those  who  have  the  true  faith,  many  are 
unfortunately  lost. 

a)  Predestinarianism  was  taught  by  Calvin, 
and  also  by  the  younger  Jansenius,  who  hereti- 

30  In  connection  with  the  Sacrament  of  Penance. 

6 


;6 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


cally  asserted  that  “  It  savours  of  Semi-Pelagian- 
ism  to  say  that  Christ  died,  or  shed  His  blood, 
for  all  men  without  exception/'  1  This  proposi¬ 
tion  was  censured  as  “false,  foolhardy,  and  scan¬ 
dalous"  by  Innocent  X,  who  added  that,  “under¬ 
stood  in  the  sense  that  Christ  died  for  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  the  predestined  only,"  Jansenius'  thesis  is 
furthermore  “impious,  blasphemous  .  .  .  and 
heretical."  Consequently  it  must  be  accepted  as 
an  article  of  faith  that  Christ  died  also  for  those 
who  were  not  predestined.  These  are  the  “faith¬ 
ful,"  i.  e.  (in  the  New  Testament)  all  who  have 
received  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  be  they  in¬ 
fants  or  adults.  For  all  baptized  Christians  are 
bound  to  accept  the  Creed,  which  says  that  Christ 
“descended  from  Heaven  for  us  men  and  for  our 
salvation."  2 

b)  Sacred  Scripture  is  so  clear  on  this  point 
that  we  may  well  marvel  at  the  existence  of 
Predestinarianism.  St.  Paul  must  have  had  the 
“faithful"  in  mind  when  he  wrote  to  the  Thes- 
salonians:  “For  God  hath  not  appointed  us 
unto  wrath,  but  unto  the  purchasing  of  salva¬ 
tion  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  died  for  us."  3 
Again,  Christ  Himself,  assuredly  the  most  faith- 

l  “ Semipelagianum  est  dicere,  2“.  .  .  qui  propter  nos  homines 
Christum  pro  omnibus  omnino  ho-  et  propter  nostram  salutem  de¬ 
minibus  mortuum  esse  aut  sanguinem  scendit  de  coelis.” 
fudisse Prop.  Damn,  lansenii,  5  3  1  Thess.  V,  9  sq. 

(Denzinger-Bannwart,  Enchiridion, 
n.  1096). 


CHRIST  DIED  FOR  ALL 


77 


ful  exponent  of  the  Divine  Will,  in  the  touching 
prayer  which  He  pronounced  as  the  High  Priest 
of  humanity,  included  all  the  faithful, — in  fact, 
indirectly,  the  whole  human  race.  Cfr.  John 
XVII,  20  sq. :  “Non  pro  eis  [soil.  Apostolis ] 
autem  rogo  tantmn ,  sed  et  pro  eis  qui  credituri 
sunt 4  per  verbum  eorum  in  me ,  .  .  .  ut  credat 
mundus ,5  quia  tu  me  misisti  —  And  not  for  them 
[i.  e.}  the  Apostles]  only  do  I  pray,  but  for  them 
also  who  through  their  word  shall  believe  in  me; 
.  .  .  that  the  world  may  believe  that  thou  hast 
sent  me.” 

c)  The  teaching  of  the  Fathers  on  this  point 
is  copiously  expounded  by  Petavius,6  and  we 
need  not  expatiate  on  it  here.7 

Thesis  II:  Christ  died  for  all  men  without  excep¬ 
tion. 

This  thesis  may  be  qualified  as  “saltern  fidei 
proximo ” 

Proof.  The  Provincial  Council  of  Quiercy 
(A.  D.  853)  defined  against  Gottschalk:  “As 
there  never  was,  is  or  will  be  any  man  whose 
nature  was  not  assumed  by  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  so  there  never  was,  is  or  will  be  any  man 
for  whom  He  has  not  suffered;  though  not  all 


4  rrepi  rwv  ttkjtzvovtwv* 

5  tva  6  kocx/ios  TnaTevcrri' 

6  De  Incarn.,  XIII,  2  sq. 


Augustine’s  teaching  by  the  Jansen- 
ists  consult  Dechamps,  De  Haeresi 
Janseniana,  1.  II,  disp.  7. 


7  On  the  misrepresentation  of  St. 


78 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


are  redeemed  by  the  mystery  of  His  passion.”  8 
Pope  Alexander  VIII,  A.  D.  1690,  formally  con¬ 
demned  the  proposition  that  “Christ  gave  Him¬ 
self  for  us  as  an  oblation  to  God,  not  for  the 
elect  only,  but  for  all  the  faithful,  and  for  the 
faithful  alone.”  9  The  Tridentine  Council  defines 
the  dogmatic  teaching  of  the  Church  on  this  point 
as  follows:  “Him  [Christ]  God  hath  proposed 
as  a  propitiator,  through  faith  in  His  blood,  for 
our  sins;  and  not  for  our  sins  only,  but  also  for 
those  of  the  whole  world.”  10 

a)  This  Tridentine  teaching  is  thoroughly 
Scriptural,  in  fact  it  is  couched  in  the  very  lan¬ 
guage  of  Holy  Writ.  Cfr.  1  John  II,  2:  “Et 
ipse  est  propitiatio  11  pro  peccatis  nostris,  non  pro 
nostris  autem  tantiim,  sed  etiam  pro  totius 
mundi 12 —  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins : 
and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  those  of  the 
whole  world.”  1  Tim.  II,  6  must  be  interpreted 
in  consonance  with  the  text  just  quoted.  “Qui 


8  "Christus  Iesus  D.  N.,  sicut  nul- 
Ins  homo  est,  fuit  vel  erit,  cuius  na- 
tura  in  illo  assumpta  non  fuerit,  ita 
nullus  est,  fuit  vel  erit  homo,  pro 
quo  passus  non  fuerit,  licet  non 
omnes  passionis  eius  mysterio  re- 
dimantur.”  The  controversies  inci¬ 
dent  to  the  Council  of  Valence  (A. 
D.  855)  were  due  to  a  misunder¬ 
standing.  Cfr.  B.  Dorholt,  Die 
Lehre  von  der  Genugtuung  Christi, 
pp.  323  sqq. 

9  ".  .  .  dedit  semetipsum  pro  no¬ 

bis  oblationem  Deo,  non  pro  solis 


electis,  sed  pro  omnibus  et  solis  fide- 
libus.”  (Denzinger-Bannwart,  En¬ 
chiridion,  n.  1294.) 

10  “Hunc  proposuit  Deus  propi- 
tiatorem  per  fidem  in  sanguine  ip- 
sius  pro  peccatis  nostris,  non  solum 
autem  pro  nostris,  sed  etiam  pro  to¬ 
tius  mundi.”  Cone.  Trid.,  Sess.  VI, 
cap.  2  (Denzinger-Bannwart,  n. 
794). 

11  IXacr/xos- 

12  aWa  Kal  7 repl  6\ov  rov  k6<j * 
fiov> 


CHRIST  DIED  FOR  ALL 


7  9 


dedit  redemptionem  semetipsum  pro  omnibus 
[scil.  hominibus ]  — Who  gave  himself  a  redemp¬ 
tion  for  all  [i.  e.y  for  all  men].”  The  context 
shows  that  St.  Paul  means  to  emphasize  the 
universality  of  God's  will  to  save  all  men.  We 
may  also  point  in  confirmation  of  our  thesis  to 
such  passages  as  2  Cor.  V,  14,  in  which  the 
Apostle  numbers  among  the  elect  such  as  are  still 
in  the  state  of  original  sin  as  well  as  those  who 
are  justified.  “Si  anus  pro  omnibus  13  mortuus 
est,  ergo  omnes  14  mortui  sunt  —  If  one  died  for 
all,  then  all  are  dead.”  15 

b)  The  Jansenists  did  not  deny  that  the 
Fathers  who  wrote  before  Pelagius  clearly  taught 
the  vicarious  atonement  to  be  as  universal  as 
God's  will  to  save  mankind,  i.  e .,  that  it  embraces 
all  human  beings  without  exception.  But  they 
claimed  that  a  change  came  with  St.  Augustine, 
who  succumbed  to  the  evil  influence  of  Predesti- 
narianism.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  famous 
African  Doctor  was  warmly  defended  against 
this  calumnious  charge  by  one  of  his  contempo¬ 
raneous  disciples,  St.  Prosper  of  Aquitaine.16 

13  vnep  7ravT0JV‘  holt,  Lehre  von  der  Genugtuung 

14  oi  7 rdvTes,  Christi ,  Paderborn  1896,  pp.  317 

15  For  an  explanation  of  this  text  sqq.,  by  Tricassin,  De  Praedestina- 

see  Al.  Schafer,  Erkl'drung  der  bei-  tione,  p.  I,  sect.  7,  punct.  4  sqq., 
den  Brief e  an  die  Korinther,  pp.  and  by  Franzelin,  De  Deo  Uno , 
439  sqq.,  Munster  1903.  thes.  32,  Rome  1883.  The  fate  of 

16  We  cannot  enter  into  the  con-  unbaptized  infants  v/ill  be  discussed 
troversy  here.  The  student  will  in  Vol.  VII  of  this  series. 

find  it  exhaustively  treated  by  Dor- 


8o 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


Thesis  III:  The  atonement  did  not  benefit  the 
fallen  angels. 

This  proposition  is  de  fide . 

Proof.  Origen  taught  that  Christ  also  died 
for  the  demons,  who  were  destined  at  some  fu¬ 
ture  time  to  be  released  from  hell.  This  error 
( dTroKarao-raats  7r(mw)  was  closely  related  to 
another,  harbored  by  the  same  learned  but 
erratic  divine,  viz. ;  that  the  Logos  assumed  the 
form  of  an  angel  to  redeem  the  lost  angels,  just 
as  He  became  man  to  redeem  sinful  humanity. 
These  vagaries  were  condemned  as  heretical  by 
a  council  held  at  Constantinople  in  543,  and 
again  by  the  Fifth  Ecumenical  Council,  A.  D. 

553‘17 

The  dogma  embodied  in  our  present  thesis  is 
intimately  bound  up  with  that  concerning  the 
fall  of  the  angels  and  their  eternal  banishment 
from  Paradise.18  Being  condemned  to  everlast¬ 
ing  hell-fire,  the  evil  spirits  can  have  no  share  in 
the  merits  of  the  Redeemer.  “For  although  there 
is  assigned  to  angels  also  perdition  in  the  fire  pre¬ 
pared  for  the  Devil  and  his  angels/’  says  Ter- 
tullian,  “yet  a  restoration  was  never  promised 

17  Cfr.  Denzinger,  Enchiridion,  General  Council  in  553,  though  the 
ed.  9,  n.  193  and  198.  Fr.  Diekamp  acta  of  the  latter  do  not  mention 
(Die  origenistischen  Streitigkeiten  the  fact.  Cfr.  Chr.  Pesch,  S.  J., 
im  6.  Jahrhundert  und  das  V .  allge -  Theologische  Zeitfragen,  Vol.  II, 
meine  Konsil,  Munster  1899)  has  put  Freiburg  1901. 

a  quietus  on  an  ancient  controversy  18  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  God  the  Ail- 
by  showing  that  Origenism  was  con-  thor  of  Nature  and  the  Supernal • 
demned  both  by  the  Council  of  Con-  ural,  pp.  340  sqq. 
stantinople  in  543  and  by  the  Fifth 


WHY  SOME  ARE  LOST 


81 


them.  No  charge  about  the  salvation  of  angels 
did  Christ  ever  receive  from  the  Father;  and 
that  which  the  Father  neither  promised  nor  com¬ 
manded,  Christ  could  not  have  undertaken.”  19 

Thesis  IV :  The  doctrine  of  the  universality  of  the 
atonement  is  not  disproved  by  the  fact  that  many 
human  beings  are  eternally  lost. 

This  proposition  may  be  qualified  as  theolog¬ 
ically  certain. 

Proof.  The  Council  of  Trent  teaches:  “But, 
though  He  died  for  all,  yet  not  all  receive  the 
benefit  of  His  death,  but  those  only  unto  whom 
the  merit  of  His  Passion  is  communicated.”  20 

According  to  Holy  Scripture,  the  universality 
of  Christ's  vicarious  atonement  is  not  absolute 
but  conditional.  Those  only  are  saved  who  com¬ 
ply  with  the  conditions  necessary  for  participat¬ 
ing  in  the  fruits  of  the  Redemption,  viz.:  bap¬ 
tism,  faith,  contrition,  cooperation  with  grace, 
perseverance.  Cfr.  Mark  XVI,  16:  “Qni  cr edi¬ 
ct  erit  et  baptizatus  fuerit,  salvus  erit ;  qui  vero 
non  ere  did  erit y  condemnabitur  —  He  that  be- 
lieveth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved;  but  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  condemned.” 

19  De  Came  Cliristi,  c.  14.' — Cfr.  20  “Verum  etsi  tile  pro  omnibus 
Dorholt,  Lehre  von  der  Genugtuung  mortuus  est,  non  omnes  tamen  eius 
Christi,  pp.  353  sqq. — On  the  partici-  beneftcium  recipiunt,  sed  ii  dum- 
pation  of  the  good  angels  in  the  taxat,  quibus  meritum  passionis  corn- 
merits  of  the  Redeemer  see  Pohle-  municatur.”  Sess.  VI,  cap.  3. 
Preuss,  Christology,  pp.  243  sqq.  Dqnzinger-Bannwart,  n.  795. 


82 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


“The  blood  of  thy  Lord,”  observes  St.  Augus¬ 
tine,  “is  given  for  thee,  if  thou  wilt;  if  thou  wilt 
not,  it  is  not  given  for  thee.”  21 

Theologians  distinguish  between  God’s  antecedent  and 
His  consequent  will  to  save  men.  Antecedently  He 
willed  to  save  all  men  without  exception,  even  those  who 
are  lost ;  voluntate  consequently  however,  the  damned  are 
in  fact,  though  not  in  principle,  excluded  from  the  fruits 
of  the  Redemption.  It  is  correct  to  say,  however,  in 
spite  of  this  limitation,  that  Christ  also  died  for  the 
damned,  both  past  and  future,  because  they  are  lost 
through  their  own  fault. 

The  atonement  may  be  regarded  as  universal  from 
still  another  point  of  view.  Satisfaction  is  either  merely 
sufficient  or  efficacious.  It  is  sufficient  if  it  provides 
adequate  means  of  salvation.  It  is  efficacious  if  these 
means  are  appropriated  and  utilized  by  those  to  whom 
they  are  offered.  Catholic  divines  unanimously  teach 
that  Christ  died  for  all  men  secundum  sufdcientiam, 
non  tamen  secundum  efficaciam.  It  is  indeed  quite  ob¬ 
vious  that  if  a  man  neglects  to  appropriate  the  fruits  of 
the  Redemption,  he  derives  no  more  benefit  therefrom 
than  one  who  is  dying  of  thirst  receives  from  a  spring 
within  his  reach  but  from  which  he  refuses  to  drink. 
“Although  [Christ]  by  His  death  made  sufficient  satis¬ 
faction  for  the  sins  of  the  human  race,”  says  St.  Thomas, 
“yet  each  individual  man  must  seek  for  the  remedies 
whereby  to  work  out  his  own  salvation.  The  death  of 
Christ  may  in  a  manner  be  called  the  universal  cause  of 
salvation,  like  as  the  sin  of  the  first  man  was,  after  a 
fashion,  the  universal  cause  of  damnation.  But  it  is  nec¬ 
essary  that  the  universal  cause  be  applied  to  each  one 

21  Serm.,  344,  n.  4. 


WHY  SOME  ARE  LOST 


83 


in  particular,  that  each  may  participate  in  its  effect. 
The  effect  of  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  descends  to 
each  one  of  us  by  the  propagation  of  the  flesh,  while 
the  effect  of  our  Saviour’s  death  comes  to  each  by  spir¬ 
itual  regeneration  .  .  .  and  therefore  it  is  necessary  that 
each  individual  human  being  should  seek  to  be  regenerated 
through  Christ  and  to  employ  all  other  means  whereby  the 
death  of  Christ  becomes  efficacious.”  22  In  other  words, 
the  atonement  is  universal  only  with  regard  to  its  objec¬ 
tive  value  or  sufficiency,  not  in  respect  of  its  subjective 
application  or  efficaciousness. 23 


22  "  Quamvis  autem  sufficient er 
pro  peccatis  humani  generis  sud 
morte  satisfecerit,  sunt  tamen  uni • 
cuique  remedia  propriae  salutis 
quaerenda.  Mors  enim  Christi  est 
quasi  quaedam  universalis  causa 
salutis ,  sicut  peccatum  primi  ho- 
minis  fuit  quasi  universalis  causa 
damnationis.  Oportet  autem  uni- 
versalem  causam  applicari  ad  unum- 
quodque  specialiter,  ut  effectum  uni¬ 
versalis  causae  participet.  Effeclus 


igitur  peccati  primi  parentis  pervenit 
ad  unumquemque  per  carnis  ori- 
ginem,  effectus  autem  mortis  Christi 
pertingit  ad  unumquemque  per  spi- 
ritualem  regenerationem  .  .  .  et  ideo 
oportet  quod  unusquisque  quaerat 
regenerari  per  Christum  et  alia  sus- 
cipere ,  in  quibus  virtus  mortis 
Christi  operatur /’  Contra  Gent., 
IV,  55,  sub.  fin. 

23  Cfr.  Dorholt,  op.  cit.,  *pp.  307 
sqq.,  330  sqq. 


SECTION  3 

THE  CONCRETE  REALIZATION  OF  CHRIST’S  VICA¬ 
RIOUS  ATONEMENT 

In  the  two  preceding  Sections  we  have  shown  that 
the  atonement  was  real  and  intrinsically  as  well  as  ex- 
trinsically  perfect.  The  question  now  arises:  What 
were  the  specific  actions  by  which  the  Godman  made  satis¬ 
faction  for  our  sins  ?  Or,  to  express  it  in  simpler  terms, 
How  did  Christ  redeem  us?  We  pray:  “  By  Thy  holy 
Cross  Thou  hast  redeemed  the  world.”  This  does  not 
imply  that  our  Divine  Saviour’s  previous  actions  had 
no  reference  to  the  purpose  of  the  Redemption.  His 
whole  life,  from  His  conception  to  His  death  on  the 
Cross,  was  a  chain  of  expiatory  actions,  each  in  itself 
sufficient  to  redeem  the  world  in  actn  primo.  But  it 
was  an  essential  feature  of  the  scheme  of  salvation  that 
in  actu  secundo,  i.  e.,  actually,  no  satisfaction  was  accept¬ 
able  but  that  which  had  its  consummation  in  the  trag¬ 
edy  on  Golgotha. 

In  the  present  Section,  therefore,  we  shall  first  treat 
of  Christ’s  Death  on  the  Cross  (Article  i)  and  then  of 
two  subsequent  events  of  peculiar  soteriological  import, 
viz.:  His  Descent  into  Hell  (Article  2)  and  His  Glori¬ 
ous  Resurrection  (Article  3). 


84 


CHRIST’S  DEATH 


85 


ARTICLE  1 

Christ’s  death  on  the  cross 

We  are  here  considering  the  death  of  our  Di¬ 
vine  Redeemer  not  as  a  sacrifice,  but  merely  as  the 
means  of  our  salvation.  It  was  by  His  passion 
and  death  that  Jesus  actually  redeemed  mankind. 
The  circumstance  that  His  death  was  a  bloody 
sacrifice  constitutes  Him  a  priest;  this  aspect  of 
the  matter  will  receive  due  attention  in  Part  II, 
Chapter  1,  infra. 

1.  Christ’s  Death  the  Efficient  Cause  of 
our  Redemption. — In  view  of  the  central  posi¬ 
tion  which  the  Cross  of  Christ  occupies  in  the 
history  of  the  Redemption,  the  Tridentine  Coun¬ 
cil  asserted  a  truth  self-evident  to  every  Christian 
when  it  defined :  “Of  this  justification  the  causes 
are  these:  the  final  cause  indeed  is  the  glory  of 
God  and  of  Jesus  Christ,  .  .  .  while  the  efficient 
cause  is  a  merciful  God ;  .  .  .  but  the  meritorious 
cause  is  His  most  beloved  only-begotten  Son,  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  .  .  .  merited  justification 
for  us  by  His  most  holy  Passion  on  the  wood  of 
the  Cross  and  made  satisfaction  for  us  to  God  the 
Father.”  1 

1  “Huius  iustificationis  causae  Iesus  Christus,  qui  .  .  .  sua  sanctis- 
sunt  finalis  quidem  gloria  Dei  et  sima  passione  in  ligno  crucis  nobis 
Christi,  .  .  .  efficiens  vero  miseri-  iustificationem  meruit  et  pro  nobis 
cors  Deus,  .  .  .  meritoria  autem  di -  Deo  Patri  [scil.  per  appropria¬ 
te  ctissimus  Unigenitus  suus  D,  N.  tionctn]  satis  fecit.”  Cone .  Trid,f 


86 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


So  important  a  dogma  must  loom  large  in  the 
New  Testament  and  be  at  least  foreshadowed  in 
the  Old. 

a)  Apart  from  certain  Old  Testament  types 
(such  as  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  the  scapegoat,  the 
brazen  serpent,  etc.),2  the  Messianic  prophecies 
afford  numerous  intimations  of  the  bloody  pas¬ 
sion  and  death  of  the  future  Messias.  Most  of 
these  occur  in  the  prophecies  of  Isaias  and  the 
Book  of  Psalms.  Isaias,  in  speaking  of  the  satis¬ 
faction  rendered  by  the  “servant  of  the  Lord,”  3 
invariably  describes  it  as  a  dolorous  passion  fol¬ 
lowed  by  death.4  The  21st  Psalm  characterizes 
salvation  as  the  outcome  of  intense  tribulation  and 
suffering.  “But  I  am  a  worm,  and  no  man;  the 
reproach  of  men,  and  the  outcast  of  the  people. 
All  they  that  saw  me  have  laughed  me  to  scorn : 
they  have  spoken  with  the  lips,  and  wagged  the 
head.  .  .  .  My  strength  is  dried  up  like  a  pot¬ 
sherd,  and  my  tongue  hath  cleaved  to  my  jaws: 
and  thou  hast  brought  me  down  into  the  dust  of 
death.  .  .  .  They  have  dug  my  hands  and  feet. 
They  have  numbered  all  my  bones.  And  they 
have  looked  and  stared  upon  me.  They  parted 
my  garments  amongst  them;  and  upon  my  ves¬ 
ture  they  cast  lots.”  5 


3  Is.  XLII,  1-9;  XLIX,  I  sqq.;  L, 
4  sqq.,  LIII,  4  sqq.  Cfr.  Maas, 


Sess.  VI,  cap.  7  (Denzinger-Bann- 
wart,  n.  799). 


2  On  these  and  other  types  of  the  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  231  sqq. 


suffering  Messias  see  A.  J.  Maas,  S. 
J.,  Christ  in  Type  and  Prophecy, 
Vol.  II,  pp.  322-343* 


4  See  supra,  pp.  46  sq. 

5  Ps.  XXI,  7  sqq.  Cfr.  Maas,  op, 


CHRIST’S  DEATH 


87 


b)  The  New  Testament  fairly  swarms  with 
passages  in  support  of  the  dogma.  Christ  Him¬ 
self  says:  “Filins  hominis  non  venit  ministrari, 
sed  ministrare ,  et  dare  animam  suam  redemp- 
tionem 6  pro  multis  —  The  Son  of  man  is  not 
come  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and 
to  give  his  life  a  redemption  for  many.”  7  And 
again:  “Sic  enim  Deus  dilexit  mundum,  ut 
Filium  suum  unigenitum  daret ,8  ut  omnis  qui 
credit  in  eum ,  non  pereat ,  sed  habeat  vitam  aeter- 
nam  —  God  so  loved  the  world,  as  to  give  his 
only  begotten  Son;  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
him,  may  not  perish,  but  may  have  life  everlast¬ 
ing.”  9  St.  Paul  attests  the  same  truth  in  some¬ 
what  different  terms.  “Qui  etiam  proprio  Filio 
suo  non  pepercit,”  he  says,  “sed  pro  nobis  omni¬ 
bus  tradidit 10  ilium  —  He  spared  not  even  his 
own  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all.”  11 
The  notion  that  Christ  died  for  us  on  the  Cross 
assumes  concrete  form  in  the  shedding  of  His 
blood  “unto  the  remission  of  sins.”  12  Hence 
the  well-known  Pauline  axiom,  “ Sine  sanguinis 
effusione  non  fit  remissio  13 — Without  shedding 
of  blood  there  is  no  remission.”  14  Therefore, 
too,  subjective  salvation,  i.  e .,  the  application  of 


6  Xi Wpov  =  ransom. 

7  Matth.  XX,  28. 

8  %5wkcV' 

9  John  III,  16. 

10  7rapedw/C€v4 


•ylverai  acpeais- 
14  Heb.  IX,  22. 


11  Rom.  VIII,  32. 

12  Cfr.  Matth.  XXVI,  28. 

13  Kal  xwpts  alfJLareKxvvias  o& 


88 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


the  fruits  of  the  Redemption  to  the  individual 
soul,  is  described  as  “the  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ,”  15  and  the  Redemption  was  not 
“consummated”  until  Christ  gave  up  the  ghost.16 

2.  The  Congruity  of  Christ's  Death  on 
the  Cross. — It  was  fitting  that  Christ  should  die 
for  us  on  the  Cross.  The  reasons  are  admirably 
developed  by  St.  Thomas.17  We  must  confine 
ourselves  to  a  summary  of  the  most  important  of 
them. 

a)  It  would  have  been  unbecoming  for  the  Redeemer  to 
die  of  old  age  or  disease,18  or  to  fall  beneath  the  blows 
of  an  assassin.  His  high  office  as  Saviour  of  the  human 
race  demanded  that  He  should  die  a  public  death.  In  no 
other  way  could  He  have  so  effectively  sealed  the  truth  of 
His  teaching.  Nothing  could  have  been  more  conducive 
to  the  spread  of  His  Gospel  than  His  bloody  martyrdom, 
which  contained  within  itself  the  proof  of  His  teaching 
and  power.  The  fact  that  He  met  death  unflinchingly 
gained  for  Him  a  greater  number  of  enthusiastic  ad¬ 
herents  than  many  years  of  teaching  could  have  done. 
What  is  the  poison  cup  that  Socrates  put  to  his  lips  in 
comparison  with  the  agony  suffered  by  Jesus  Christ? 
His  reward  was  proportionate  to  the  magnitude  of  His 
suffering.  This  consideration  (namely,  that  He  merited 
His  glorification  by  intense  suffering)  implies  a  profound 
teleology,  which  may  be  truly  termed  divine. 

15  i  Pet.  I,  z :  “  aspersionem  san-  is  developed  by  Tepe,  Inst.  Theol., 
guinis  Iesu  Christi.”  Cfr.  Heb.  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  651  sqq. 

IX,  13  sq.  17  S.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  46,  art.  1-4, 

16  “Consummatum  est.”  John  11;  qu.  47,  art.  4;  qu.  50,  art.  x. 
XIX,  30. — The  Patristic  argument  18  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology, 

pp.  81  sqq. 


CHRIST’S  DEATH 


89 


b)  In  regard  to  those  for  whom  He  gave  up  His  life, 
Christ  could  not  have  selected  a  more  congruous  manner 
of  dying  than  that  which  He  actually  chose.  The  path  of 
Christian  perfection  runs  between  two  poles  —  hatred 
of  sin  and  the  practice  of  virtue.  From  both  points  of 
view  the  cruel  drama  enacted  on  Golgotha  was  eminently 
effective.  The  power  of  sin  could  not  be  broken  except 
by  a  strong  opposing  force.  This  may  be  regarded  either 
objectively  or  subjectively. 

a)  The  sin  of  our  first  parents  had  doomed  the  human 
race  to  spiritual  death,  a  terrible  penalty  which  entailed 
the  death  of  the  body.19  Hence  it  was  eminently  proper 
that  our  Divine  Redeemer  should  by  His  bodily  death  de¬ 
stroy  the  spell  of  spiritual  death  and  thereby  restore  man 
to  that  corporeal  immortality  which  had  been  one  of  the 
prerogatives  of  the  human  race  in  Paradise,  but  was  for¬ 
feited  by  sin.  There  is  a  striking  parallel  also  between 
the  first  sinner’s  desire  to  be  like  unto  God  and  the  self- 
humiliation  of  the  Godman,  between  the  “  tree  of  knowl¬ 
edge  ”  and  the  “  wood  of  the  Cross.”  The  antithesis  be¬ 
tween  Christ’s  passion  and  death  on  the  one  hand,  and  sin 
on  the  other,  may  be  traced  in  detail.  Thus  the  unholy 
trinity  of  vices  which  we  have  inherited  from  our  first 
parents  —  concupiscence  of  the  eyes,  concupiscence  of  the 
flesh,  and  pride  of  life  —  received  a  tremendous  blow  by 
the  bitter  passion  and  death  of  our  Saviour, —  concupis¬ 
cence  of  the  eyes  in  the  distribution  of  his  garments, 
concupiscence  of  the  flesh  in  His  disrobing  and  scourg¬ 
ing,  and  pride  of  life  in  the  imposition  of  the  thorny 
crown  and  the  crucifixion. 

/?)  Nothing  could  produce  a  more  impressive  idea  of 
the  hideousness  of  sin  than  the  contemplation  of  the 


19  Cfr.  Rom.  V,  7  sqq. 


90 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


mangled  and  blood-stained  body  of  our  crucified  Re¬ 
deemer.20  It  is  apt  to  soften  the  hardest  of  hearts. 
He  who  dares  to  offend  God  in  plain  view  of  the  Cross 
is  an  atrocious  villain,  because,  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul, 
he  does  not  shrink  from  “  crucifying  again  .  .  .  the  Son 
of  God  and  making  him  a  mockery.”  21  The  height  of 
contemplation  and  the  heroic  practice  of  virtue  to  which 
the  medieval  mystics  attained  by  meditating  on  the  cruel 
sufferings  of  our  Divine  Redeemer,  have  been  and  still 
are  within  the  reach  of  all  men.  Like  St.  John  many 
have  found  by  experience  that  love  kindles  love.  “  In 
this  is  charity :  not  as  though  we  had  loved  God,  but  be¬ 
cause  he  hath  first  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  a  pro¬ 
pitiation  for  our  sins.”  22 

Our  crucified  Redeemer  is,  moreover,  a  living  and  at¬ 
tractive  model  of  all  virtue.  How  would  it  be  possible 
for  us  poor  weak  mortals  to  be  virtuous  had  we  not  His 
glorious  example  to  encourage  us?  Is  there  anything 
a  selfish,  effeminate  man  dreads  more  than  pain  and 
death?  Yet  the  Passion  of  Christ  has  deprived  both  of 
their  sting.  St.  Teresa  had  no  other  desire  than  either 
to  die  or  to  suffer  (ant  mori  aut  pati).  Death,  too,  so 
terrible  to  human  nature,  has  lost  its  horrors.  With  the 
crucifix  clasped  in  his  hands  and  the  name  of  the  Re¬ 
deemer  on  his  lips,  the  pious  Christian  calmly  commends 
his  soul  to  the  Heavenly  Father.  In  the  Cross  there  is 
salvation,  the  Cross  is  a  haven  of  refuge.23 


20  On  the  extensive  and  intensive 
magnitude  of  our  Lord’s  suffering 
see  Cfr.  Pesch,  Prael.  Dogmat.,  Vol. 
IV,  pp.  267  sqq. ;  A.  Kluge,  Das 
Seelenleiden  des  Welterlosers,  Mainz 
1905. 

21  Heb.  VI,  6. 


22  1  John  IV,  10. 

23  Cfr.  the  Roman  Catechism, 
Part  I,  ch.  5,  qu.  4,  14;  Billuart, 
De  Myst.  Christi,  diss.  9,  art.  1,  and 
Oswald,  Die  Erldsung  in  Christo 
Jesu,  Vol.  II,  §5,  Paderborn  1887. 


CHRISTS  DESCENT  INTO  HELD 


91 


ARTICLE  2 

Christ’s  descent  into  hell 

The  Oriental  and  the  ancient  Roman  versions 
of  the  so-called  Apostles’  Creed  do  not  mention 
Christ’s  Descent  into  hell.  But  the  doctrine  is 
contained  in  the  Spanish,  Gallic,  and  Aquilean  re¬ 
censions  and  in  the  symbol  “ Quicunque wrongly 
attributed  to  St.  Athanasius.  Hence  the  descen¬ 
sus  ad  inferos  is  commonly  regarded  as  an  article 
of  faith.  The  Fourth  Lateran  Council  (A.  D. 
1215)  teaches  somewhat  more  explicitly:  “He 
descended  into  hell,  .  .  .  but  He  descended  in 
soul  and  arose  in  flesh,  and  ascended  equally 
in  both.”  1 

Durandus  contended  that  the  soul  of  Christ  de¬ 
scended  into  hell  dynamically  but  not  substan¬ 
tially.  This  opinion  was  censured  as  heretical  by 
Suarez.2  And  justly  so;  for  it  can  be  effectively 
refuted  from  Sacred  Scripture.  The  same  is  true 
of  Calvin’s  absurd  notion  3  that  Christ  before  and 
after  His  agonizing  death  suffered  the  tortures 
of  the  damned. 

The  nature  of  the  place  into  which  our  Lord 
descended  has  never  been  dogmatically  defined, 

1 "  Descendit  ad  infernos,  .  .  .  zinger-Bannwart,  Enchiridion,  n. 
sed  descendit  in  anima  et  resurrexit  429.) 

in  came:  ascenditque  pariter  in  2  De  Myst.  Vitae  Christi,  disp.  43, 
utroque  ”  Caput  ”Firmiter.’>  (Den-  sect.  2,  n.  7. 

3  Inst.,  II,  16,  10. 


7 


92 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


but  it  is  theologically  certain  that  it  was  the  so- 
called  limbus  patrum  ( sinus  Abrahae). 

i.  Proof  of  the  Dogma  from  Sacred  Scrip¬ 
ture  and  Tradition. — The  dogma  of  Christ's 
Descent  into  hell  is  clearly  contained  both  in 
Sacred  Scripture  and  Tradition. 

a)  Ps.  XV,  io:  “Non  derelinques  animam 
meant  in  inferno /  nec  dabis  Sanctum  tuum  videre 
corruptionem  —  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in 
hell,  nor  wilt  thou  give  thy  holy  one  to  see  cor¬ 
ruption."  This  text  contains  a  convincing  argu¬ 
ment  for  our  dogma,  because  St.  Peter  directly 
applies  it  to  Christ :  “Providens  [David]  locutus 
est  de  resurrectione  Christi,  quia  neque  derelictus 
est  in  inferno  neque  caro  eius  vidit  corruptionem 
—  Foreseeing  this,  he  [David]  spoke  of  the  resur¬ 
rection  of  Christ.  For  neither  was  he  left  in  hell, 
neither  did  his  flesh  see  corruption." 5  The 
Greek  term  which  the  Vulgate  renders  by  in- 
fernum  is  It  cannot  mean  grave,  as  Beza 

contended,  because  the  soul  of  Christ  was  not 
buried;  nor  can  it  mean  death  (which  is  Calvin’s 
interpretation),  because  the  soul  of  Christ  did  not 
die.  It  must  refer  to  a  locality  where  the  soul  of 
our  Lord  sojourned  until  it  was  reunited  with  His 
“uncorrupted  flesh"  at  the  Resurrection.6 


4  ttjv  efc  adov-  6-12;  Maas,  Christ  in  Type  and 

5  Acts  II,  31.  Cfr.  Acts  XIII,  35.  Prophecy,  Vol.  I,  pp.  140  sqq.;  Vol. 

6  Cfr.  Bellarmine,  De  Christo,  IV,  II,  pp.  358  sqq.,  esp.  p.  372. 


CHRIST’S  DESCENT  INTO  HELL 


93 


This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  the  teaching  of 
St.  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians :  “  Now  that 
he  ascended,  what  is  it,  but  because  he  also  descended 
first  into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth  ? 7  He  that  de¬ 
scended  is  the  same  also  that  ascended  above  all  the 
heavens,  that  he  might  fill  all  things.” 8  Christ’s  as¬ 
cension  here  can  only  mean  His  return  to  Heaven.  Con¬ 
sequently,  the  word  descend ,  in  contradistinction  to  as¬ 
cend,  must  here  be  understood  in  a  local  sense.  This  is 
rendered  all  the  more  probable  by  the  fact  that  the  phrase 
inferiores  partes  terrae  cannot  be  applied  to  Christ’s 
burial,  and  still  less  metaphorically  to  the  Incarnation. 
For  the  rest,  St.  Peter,  (in  a  somewhat  obscure  passage,  it 
is  true),9  explicitly  observes  that  the  soul  of  Christ 
“  preached 10  to  those  spirits  that  were  in  prison,” — 
hence  it  must  have  been  substantially  present  in  a  partic¬ 
ular  place,  i.  e.}  the  limbo. 

b)  The  Tradition  in  support  of  our  dogma  is 
as  ancient  as  it  is  positive. 

St.  Irenaeus  says :  “  For  three  days  He  dwelt  in  the 
place  where  the  dead  were.” 11  Tertullian  mentions 
Christ’s  Descent  into  hell  in  several  passages  of  his 
works.  We  shall  quote  but  one.  “  Nor  did  He  ascend 
into  the  heights  of  heaven  before  descending  into  the 
lower  parts  of  the  earth,  that  He  might  there  make  the 
patriarchs  and  prophets  partakers  of  Himself.”  12  St. 
Augustine  speaks  with  the  authority  of  both  Scripture 

7  e/s  ra  Karurepa  pept]  rrj s  y rjs.  Adv.  Haereses,  V,  31,  1;  cfr.  also 

8  Eph.  IV,  9  sq.  Adv.  Haereses ,  IV,  27,  2. 

9  1  Pet.  Ill,  18  sqq.  12  “  Nec  ante  ascendit  in  sublimi- 

10  eKripv^e9  praedicavit.  ora  coelorum,  quam  descendit  in  in- 

11  “Nunc  autern  tribus  diebus  feriora  terrarum,  ut  illic  patriarchas 

conversatus  est,  ubi  erant  tnortui ”  et  prophetas  compotes  sui  faceret.” 

De  Anima ,  c.  55;  cfr.  also  c.  4,  7. 


94 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


and  Tradition  when  he  says :  “  Who  but  an  unbeliever 

would  deny  that  Christ  was  in  the  nether  world  ?  ”  13 

2.  Meaning  of  the  Term  “Hell.” — Infer - 
num  ($&?«,  Karwrara?  Hebrew,  )  may  designate 
either  (a)  hell  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term, 
i.  e .,  the  abode  of  the  reprobates  ( gehenna ) ;  or 
(b)  a  place  of  purification  after  death,  commonly 
called  purgatory  (pur  gat  or  him) ;  or  (c)  the 
biding  place  of  children  who  have  died  unbaptized 
(limbus  infantium ) ;  or  (d)  the  abode  of  the 
just  men  who  lived  before  the  coming  of  Christ 
(limbus  patrum).  To  which  of  these  four  places 
did  Christ  descend? 

a)  The  soul  of  our  Lord  did  not  descend  to  the 
abode  of  the  damned. 

Calvin’s  blasphemous  assertion  that  the  soul  of  Christ, 
from  the  beginning  of  His  sacred  Passion  in  the  Garden 
of  Gethsemane  to  the  Resurrection,  dwelled  in  the  abode 
of  the  damned,  and  there  suffered  the  poena  damni,  is 
based  on  an  untenable  exaggeration  of  the  notion  of 
vicarious  atonement.14  It  is  not  true,  as  Calvin  held, 
that  Christ’s  Descent  into  hell  constituted  the  climax 
of  the  atonement.  The  atonement  culminated  on  the 
Cross.  (“  Consummation  est /’)  Nor  can  we  conceive 
of  any  reasonable  motive  why  our  Lord  should  have 
descended  into  the  gehenna  of  the  damned.  The  hu¬ 
man  beings  confined  in  that  awful  dungeon  were  abso- 

13  “Quis  ergo  nisi  infidelis  nega-  P.  L.,  XXXIII,  710). 
verit  fuisse  apud  inferos  Christum f”  14  Cfr.  Bellarmine,  De  Christo , 

Ep.  104  ad  Evodium,  c.  2,  3  (Migne,  V,  8. 


CHRIST’S  DESCENT  INTO  HELL 


95 


lutely  irredeemable,  even  as  the  demons  themselves.16 
Moreover,  a  personal  sojourn  in  hell  would  have  been  re¬ 
pugnant  to  the  dignity  of  the  Godman.  St.  Augustine 
does  not  hesitate  to  stigmatize  as  heretical  the  proposi¬ 
tion  that  “  When  Christ  descended  into  hell,  the  unbe¬ 
lieving  believed  and  all  were  set  free.”  16  The  “  triumph 
over  hell  ”  which  the  Church  celebrates  in  her  Easter 
hymns  did  not  require  the  substantial  presence  there  of 
our  Lord’s  soul;  it  was  accomplished  by  His  virtual  or 
dynamic  presence,  i.  e.}  the  exercise  of  His  divine  power. 

Certain  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers  17  held  that  on  the 
occasion  of  His  Descent  Christ  rescued  from  eternal  tor¬ 
ture  the  souls  of  certain  pious  heathens,  e.  g.,  Socrates 
and  Plato.  This  theory  does  not  contradict  the  dogma 
that  the  pains  of  hell  are  eternal,  as  Suarez  contends ;  but 
it  must  nevertheless  be  rejected  as  unfounded;  first,  be¬ 
cause  without  positive  proof  to  the  contrary  we  are  not 
permitted  to  assume  an  exception,  and  secondly,  because 
there  is  no  ground  whatever  for  the  assumption  that  these 
pious  heathens  were  condemned  to  hell  rather  than  rele¬ 
gated  to  the  limbus  patrum. 

b)  There  is  another  opinion,  held  by  several 
reputable  theologians,  viz.,  that  the  soul  of  Christ 
appeared  personally  in  purgatory  to  console  the 
poor  souls  and  to  admit  them  to  the  beatific  vision. 

We  may  let  this  pass  as  a  “  pious  opinion,”  provided  its 
defenders  refrain  from  denying  that  Christ  also  descended 
into  the  limbus  patrum.  But  even  with  this  limitation  we 
can  hardly  admit  that  the  theory  is  based  on  sufficient 

15  V.  supra,  Sect.  2,  Art.  2,  The-  feros  credidisse  incredulos  et  omnes 
sis  4.  exinde  liberatos.”  De  Haer.,  79. 

16 " Descendente  Christo  ad  in-  17  E.  g.,  Clement  of  Alexandria 

and  Origen. 


9 6 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


evidence.  Two  weighty  arguments  speak  against  it.  It 
is  a  fundamental  law  of  divine  justice  that  whoever  neg¬ 
lects  to  render  satisfaction  in  this  life  must  inevitably  suf¬ 
fer  in  the  next  (satis p  assio) ,  and  Sacred  Scripture  affords 
no  warrant  for  assuming  that  an  exception  was  made 
in  this  instance,  say  after  the  manner  of  a  plenary  indul¬ 
gence  in  commemoration  of  the  Redemption.  On  the 
other  hand  it  is  highly  improbable  that  all  the  inmates 
of  purgatory  should  have  finished  the  process  of  purifi¬ 
cation  at  exactly  the  same  moment.  In  view  of  these 
considerations  St.  Thomas  holds  that  the  (merely  vir¬ 
tual)  presence  of  our  Lord  in  purgatory  resulted  in  noth¬ 
ing  more  than  giving  to  the  poor  souls  temporarily  im¬ 
prisoned  there  “  the  hope  of  an  early  beatitude.”  18  The 
only  exception  the  Angelic  Doctor  is  disposed  to  make  is 
in  favor  of  those  “  who  were  already  sufficiently  purged, 
or  who  during  their  lifetime  had  by  faith  and  devotion  to 
the  death  of  Christ  merited  the  favor  of  being  released 
from  the  temporal  sufferings  of  purgatory  on  the  occasion 
of  His  descent.”  19 


c)  Was  it  perhaps  the  limbus  puerorum,  i.  e., 
the  abode  of  children  who  die  in  the  state  of  orig¬ 
inal  sin,  into  which  our  Saviour  descended?  It 
is  difficult  to  see  for  what  reason  He  should  have 
gone  there. 

He  could  not  benefit  the  souls  of  these  children,  be¬ 
cause  they  have  once  for  all  arrived  at  their  destination. 


18  5.  Theol.,  3a,  qu  51,  art.  3: 
" lllis  vero,  qui  detinebantur  in  pur- 
gatorio,  spem  gloriae  consequendae 
dedit.” 

19  “.  .  .  qui  iam  sufhcienter  pur- 
gati  erant,  vel  etiam  qui,  dum  adhuc 


viverent,  meruerunt  per  fidetn  et 
devotionem  ad  mortem  Christi,  ut 
eo  descendente  liberarentur  a  tem- 
porali  purgatorii  poena.1’  (Ibid.) 
Cfr.  Billuart,  De  Myst.  Christi,  diss. 
11,  art.  3. 


I 


CHRIST’S  DESCENT  INTO  HELL 


97 


Nor  can  He  have  desired  to  triumph  over  them,  be¬ 
cause  the  fact  that  they  are  deprived  of  the  beatific 
vision  is  not  due  to  any  malice  on  their  part,  but  simply 
and  solely  to  original  sin  contracted  by  their  descent 
from  Adam.  As  these  infants  are  absolutely  irredeem¬ 
able  in  virtue  of  Christ’s  voluntas  salmfica  consequens ,20 
we  cannot  even  assume  the  existence  of  a  special  priv¬ 
ilege  in  their  favor.  That  which  is  impossible  cannot 
be  made  the  subject-matter  of  a  privilege,  not  even  at  so 
solemn  a  juncture  as  the  death  of  our  Saviour.21  Their 
fate  does  not  involve  cruelty  nor  injustice  on  the  part 
of  God,  because,  though  deprived  of  the  beatific  vision, 
they  enjoy  a  certain  measure  of  natural  happiness.22 

d)  Consequently,  the  only  place  to  which  the 
soul  of  Christ  can  have  descended  during  the 
triduum  intervening  between  His  death  and  the 
Resurrection,  is  the  limbus  patrum,  sometimes 
also  called  “bosom  of  Abraham.” 


The  limbus  patrum  was  the  place  in  which  the  pa¬ 
triarchs  and  just  men  of  the  Old  Testament,  together 
with  those  heathens  who  had  died  in  the  state  of  grace, 
after  having  been  cleansed  from  all  stain  of  sin  in  purga¬ 
tory,  dwelled  in  the  expectation  of  the  beatific  vision. 
That  such  a  place  existed  we  conclude  from  Heb.  IX,  8 : 
“  The  way  into*  the  holies  [ i .  e.,  Heaven]  23  was  not  yet 


20  V.  supra ,  Sect.  2,  Art.  2,  The¬ 
sis  4. 

21  Cfr.  St.  Thomas,  S.  Theol.,  3a, 
qu.  52,  art.  7:  "Pueri  autem,  qui 
cum  originali  peccato  decesserant, 
nullo  modo  fuerant  coniuncti  pas- 
sioni  Christi  per  fidem  et  dilec- 
tionem.  Neque  enim  fidem  pro- 
priam  habere  potuerant,  quia  non 
habuerunt  usum  liberi  arbitrii, 


neque  per  fidem  parentum  aut  per 
aliquod  fidei  sacramentum  [ scil .  bap- 
tismum ]  fuerant  a  peccato  originali 
mundati.  Et  ideo  descensus  Christi 
ad  inferos  huiusmodi  pueros  non  li- 
beravit  ab  inferno ” 

22  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  God  the 
Author  of  Nature  and  the  Super¬ 
natural,  pp.  300  sqq. 

23  Cfr.  Heb.  X,  19. 


98 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


made  manifest,  whilst  the  former  tabernacle  [i.  e.,  the 
Old  Testament]  was  yet  standing.”  We  may  also  infer 
the  (former)  existence  of  such  a  place  from  the  fact  that 
Holy  Scripture  adverts  to  a  state  of  imprisonment  as  an 
intermediary  stage  on  the  way  to  Heaven. 

3.  Speculations  Regarding  the  Location 
of  the  Limbo. —  The  word  limbo,  which  is  de¬ 
rived  from  limbus ,  properly  signifies  edge  or  bor¬ 
der.  It  owes  its  use  as  a  technical  term  in  theol¬ 
ogy  to  the  ancient  belief  that  the  abode  of  the 
patriarchs  was  situated  on  the  confines  of  hell, 
somewhere  near  the  surface  of  the  earth.  Dante 
and  Milton  place  the  limbo  at  the  outermost  circle 
of  hell.24  Since  the  geocentric  has  been  sup¬ 
planted  by  the  Copernican  world-view,  we  know 
that  the  ancient  notions  of  “above”  and  “below” 
are  purely  relative.  Hence  the  traditional  view 
with  regard  to  the  site  of  hell  and  the  limbo  does 
not  appertain  to  the  substance  of  dogma.  The 
meagre  data  furnished  by  Revelation  do  not 
enable  us  to  draw  up  a  topographical  map  of 
the  nether  world.  We  know  no  more  about  the 
whereabouts  of  hell  than  we  know  about  the 
location  of  what  was  once  the  limbo  of  the 
Fathers.  The  theological  arguments  of  certain 
Scholastic  writers,  based  on  the  geocentric  con¬ 
ception  of  the  universe,  can  claim  no  probability, 
much  less  certitude.25 

24  Milton,  Paradise  Lost,  III,  440 

*qq. 


25  On  the  limbo  see  P.  J.  Toner 
in  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  Vol. 


CHRIST’S  DESCENT  INTO  HELL 


99 


4.  The  Soteriological  Significance  of 
Christ’s  Descent  into  Hell. — Christologically 
our  Lord’s  Descent  into  hell  must  be  conceived 
as  an  intermediary  stage  between  glorification 
and  abasement.  It  partook  of  abasement  in 
respect  of  the  external  circumstance  of  place,  but 
it  did  not  entail  upon  His  human  nature  any 
substantial  or  intrinsic  alteration.20  From  the 
soteriological  point  of  view  the  question  as  to 
the  meaning  of  Christ’s  Descent  into  hell  re¬ 
solves  itself  into  another,  namely,  What  was  its 
object  or  purpose? 

What  can  have  been  our  Saviour’s  purpose  in 
visiting  the  patriarchs?  We  may  safely  assume 
that  His  descent  stood  in  some  sort  of  relation  to 
the  redemption  of  the  human  race  which  He  had 
just  accomplished.  It  must  have  aimed  at  their 
beatification,  for  the  limbo  contained  no  repro¬ 
bates.  St.  Paul  applies  the  text  Ps.  LXVII,  19: 
“Ascendens  in  altum  captivam  dnxit  captivita- 
tem  ”  to  the  inmates  of  the  limbo,  —  as  if  he 
wished  to  say:  Ascending  into  Heaven  Christ 
leads  away  with  Him  those  who  had  been  impris¬ 
oned  in  the  limbo.27 

We  are  informed  of  the  object  of  our  Lord’s  De¬ 
scent  into  the  limbo  by  St.  Peter,  who  says  in  his 

IX,  pp.  256  sqq.;  Mamachi,  De  26  Cfr.  H.  Simar,  Dogmatik,  Vol. 
Animabus  Iustorum  in  Sinu  Abrahae  I,  3rd  ed.,  p.  538,  Freiburg  1899. 
ante  Christi  Mortem,  Rome  1706.  27  Cfr.  Eph.  IV,  8. 


IOO 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


first  Epistle:28  “[Christ  was]  put  to  death  indeed  in 
the  flesh,  but  enlivened  in  the  spirit,  in  which  also  coming 
he  preached  to  those  spirits  that  were  in  prison : 29  which 
had  been  some  time  incredulous,30  when  they  waited  for 
the  patience  of  God  in  the  days  of  Noe,  when  the  ark 
was  a-building.”  This  text  is  admittedly  difficult  of  in¬ 
terpretation  ; 31  but  despite  a  certain  obscurity,  its  gen¬ 
eral  drift  is  discernable.  The  Apostle  evidently  means 
to  say  that  Christ  personally  approached  32  the  spirits  or 
souls  of  those  who  were  imprisoned  in  the  limbo  and 
preached 33  to  them.  What  and  why  did  he  preach  to 
them?  To  assume  that  He  tried  to  convert  the  damned 
would  contradict  the  revealed  truth  that  there  is  no 
salvation  for  those  condemned  to  hell.  Can  it  have 
been  His  purpose  to  assure  them  of  their  damnation? 
This  hypothesis  is  equally  untenable,  because  a  little  fur¬ 
ther  down  in  his  text  St.  Peter  expressly  describes 
Christ’s  preaching  (Krjpv y/xa)  as  a  “gospel,”  which  means 
a  message  of  joy.  “  N eKpoU  eu^yyeAiV#^,”  these  are  his 
words  — “  the  gospel  was  preached  to  the  dead.”  34  The 
“  gospel  ”  which  our  Lord  preached  to  the  inmates  of 
limbo  must  have  been  the  glad  tidings  that  their  im¬ 
prisonment  was  at  an  end.  But  whom  does  St.  Peter 
mean  when  he  speaks  of  “  those  spirits  .  .  .  which  had 
been  some  time  incredulous,  when  they  waited  for  the 
patience  of  God  in  the  days  of  Noe”?  This  is  a  diffi¬ 
cult  question  to  answer.  But  no  matter  how  we  may 
choose  to  interpret  the  subsidiary  clause,  the  main  sen¬ 
tence  is  plain  enough.  Among  the  just  imprisoned  in  the 
limbo  there  were  also  (kcu)  some  who  had  abused  God’s 

28  i  Pet.  Ill,  18  sqq.  31  Cfr.  St.  Augustine,  Ep.  ad 

29  ev  w  Kal  rots  ev  <pv\aKjj  Evod.,  i64> 

wev/ia^Lv  7 ropevdeis  eKrjpv£ev.  32  Tropevdels- 

30  direidtjaaffiv  ttotc-  33  eKrjpv^ev,  praedicavit. 

34  i  Pet.  IV,  6. 


THE  RESURRECTION 


IOI 


patience  before  the  Deluge  by  remaining  incredulous  till 
the  flood  overtook  them.35  The  “  gospel  ”  or  joyful  mes¬ 
sage  which  Christ  brought  to  the  inmates  of  limbo  cannot 
have  consisted  in  anything  more  than  the  preliminary 
announcement  that  they  were  soon  to  be  freed ;  for  their 
formal  admission  into  the  heavenly  abode  of  the  Blessed 
did  not  take  place  till  the  day  of  His  Ascension.36  Never¬ 
theless,  in  view  of  our  Lord’s  remark  to  the  penitent 
thief :  “  This  day  thou  shalt  be  with  me  in  paradise,” 

we  must  hold  that  the  patriarchs  were  forthwith  ad¬ 
mitted  to  the  beatific  vision  of  God.37 


ARTICLE  3 

THE  RESURRECTION 


i.  The  Relation  of  Christ's  Resurrection 
to  His  Death. — Christ's  glorious  Resurrection 
may  be  considered  from  three  distinct  points  of 
view. 

Apologetically,  i.  e.,  regarded  as  a  historic  fact 
establishing  His  Divinity,  it  is  the  bulwark  of  our 
faith  1  and  the  pledge  of  our  own  future  resurrec¬ 
tion.2 

Christologically,  the  Resurrection  signalizes 


35  Cfr.  Hundhausen,  Das  erste 
Pastoralschreiben  des  Apostelfiir- 
sten  Petrus,  pp.  343  sqq.,  Mainz 
1873. 

36  Cfr.  Ps.  LX VII,  19. 

37  Cfr.  the  Catechism  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  Part  I,  Ch.  6,  Qu. 
6.  The  reasons  why  it  was  meet 
that  Christ  should  descend  into  hell 
are  developed  by  St.  Thomas,  S. 
Theol.,  3a,  qu.  52,  art.  1. 


1  1  Cor.  XV,  14. 
i2  1  Cor.  XV,  13. — For  an  apol¬ 
ogetic  treatment  of  the  Resurrec¬ 
tion  we  refer  the  student  to  De- 
vivier-Sasia,  Christian  Apologetics, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  197  sqq.,  San  Jose,  Cal., 
1903;  G.  W.  B.  Marsh,  The  Resur¬ 
rection  of  Christ,  Is  it  a  Fact ? 
London  1905;  and  other  similar 
treatises. 


102 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


Christ's  entrance  into  the  state  of  glory  which 
He  had  earned  for  Himself  by  His  passion  and 
death.3 

Considered  from  the  distinctive  viewpoint  of 
Soteriology,  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  was  not, 
strictly  speaking,  the  chief,  nor  even  a  contrib¬ 
uting  cause  of  our  redemption ; 4  but  it  was  an 
essential  complement  thereof,  and  constituted  its 
triumphant  consummation. 

a)  The  Catholic  Church  regards  the  Resurrection  as 
an  integral,  though  not  an  essential,  element  of  the  atone¬ 
ment.  That  is  why  she  mourns  on  Good  Friday  and  cele¬ 
brates  Easter  as  the  great  feast  of  the  Redemption. 
“  Lastly,”  says  the  Roman  Catechism,5  “.  .  .  the  Resur¬ 
rection  of  our  Lord  was  necessary,  in  order  to  complete 
the  mystery  of  our  salvation  and  redemption ;  for  by  his 
death  Christ  liberated  us  from  our  sins,  and  by  His 
Resurrection  he  restored  to  us  the  principal  blessings 
which  we  had  forfeited  by  sin.  Hence  it  is  said  by  the 
Apostle :  ‘  He  was  delivered  up  for  our  sins,  and  rose 

again  for  our  justification.’ 6  That  nothing,  therefore, 
might  be  wanting  to  the  salvation  of  the  human  race,  it 
was  meet  that,  as  He  should  die,  He  should  also  rise 
again.”  This  teaching  is  in  perfect  accord  with  Sacred 
Scripture,  which  links  the  crucifixion  of  our  Lord  with 
His  Resurrection  and  represents  both  events  as  one  in¬ 
divisible  whole.  Cfr.  Luke  XXIV,  46  sq. :  “  Thus  it  is 

written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer,  and  to  rise 

3  Cfr.  Luke  XXIV,  26.  V.  su-  the  Cross.  (Cfr.  supra,  pp.  85  sqq.) 

pra,  pp.  58  sq.  s  Part  I,  Ch.  6,  Qu.  12. 

4  The  sole  cause  of  our  redemp-  6  Rom.  IV,  25. 
tion  was  the  Saviour’s  death  on 


THE  RESURRECTION 


103 


again  from  the  dead,  the  third  day,  that  penance  and 
remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  unto  all 
nations.”  7 

b)  St.  Paul  deepened  this  conception  by  pointing  out 
that  the  Crucifixion  and  the  Resurrection  contain  the  two 
essential  elements  of  justification  —  remission  of  sin  and 
infusion  of  a  new  life.  As  Christ  died  and  rose  again  from 
the  dead,  so  shall  we  die  to  sin  and  arise  to  spiritual  life. 
Cfr.  Rom.  VI,  6  sqq. :  “  Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man 

is  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  may  be  de¬ 
stroyed,  to  the  end  that  we  may  serve  sin  no  longer.  For 
he  that  is  dead  is  justified  from  sin.  Now  if  we  be  dead 
with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall  live  also  together  with 
Christ:  knowing  that  Christ  rising  again  from  the  dead, 
dieth  now  no  more.”  The  Apostle  loved  to  apply  this 
sublime  symbolism  to  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  in 
which  the  acts  of  immersion  and  emersion  emblem  both 
the  burial  and  Resurrection  of  Christ,  and  the  liberation 
from  sin  and  sanctification  of  the  sinner.  Cfr.  Rom.  VI, 
4 :  “  For  we  are  buried  together  with  him  by  baptism 

into  death ;  that  as  Christ  is  risen  from  the  dead  by  the 
glory  of  the  Father,  so  we  also  may  walk  in  newness  of 
life.”  8 


2.  The  Resurrection  of  Christ  as  a  Dogma. 
— The  glorious  Resurrection  of  our  Lord  is  a 
cardinal  dogma,  nay  the  very  foundation  and 
keystone  of  Christian  belief.  For  this  reason  the 


7  Cfr.  St.  Bonaventure,  Comment, 
in  Quatuor  Libros  Sent.,  Ill,  dist. 
19,  art.  1,  qu.  i:  " Ratio  merendi 
iustificationeni  attribuitur  soli  pas- 
sioni,  non  resurrectioni;  ratio  vero 
terminandi  et  quietandi  attribuitur 
resurrectioni,  ad  quarn  ordinatur 
iustificatio,  non  passioni.” 


8  Cfr.  2  Cor.  V,  15.  On  the  sub¬ 
ject-matter  of  this  subdivision  the 
student  may  profitably  consult  St. 
Thomas,  S.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  56,  art. 
2  and  H.  Simar,  Die  Theologie  des 
hi.  Paultts,  2nd  ed.,  pp.  194  sqq., 
Freiburg  1883. 


104 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


phrase  “on  the  third  day  He  arose  again”  was 
embodied  in  all  the  creeds  and  reiterated  in  nu¬ 
merous  doctrinal  definitions. 

The  Catholic  Church  has  always  emphasized 
two  distinct  points  in  regard  to  the  Resurrection, 
viz.:  (i)  Its  reality  or  truth,  and  (2)  the 
transfigured  and  glorified  state  of  the  risen  Re¬ 
deemer.  To  safeguard  these  two  aspects  of  the 
dogma  she  strenuously  insisted  on  the  real  re¬ 
union  of  Christ's  soul  with  His  body,9  and  form¬ 
ally  rejected  the  Origenist  teaching  of  the  ethereal 
nature  and  sphericity  of  the  risen  body  as  well 
as  the  heresy  of  its  alleged  corruptibility.  Thus 
the  Council  of  Constantinople  (A.  D.  543)  says: 
“If  any  one  assert  that  the  body  of  our  Lord 
after  the  Resurrection  was  ethereal  and  spherical 
in  shape,  ...  let  him  be  anathema.”  10  And 
the  symbol  of  Pope  Leo  IX  declares  that  Christ 
arose  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day  “by  a  true 
resurrection  of  the  flesh,  to  confirm  which  He 
ate  with  His  disciples — not  because  He  stood  in 
need  of  food,  but  solely  by  His  will  and  power.”  11 
All  these  statements  can  be  convincingly  demon¬ 
strated  from  Divine  Revelation. 

a)  Christ  had  positively  predicted  that  He 
would  arise  on  the  third  day  (cfr.  Matth.  XII,  40; 

9  Cfr.  Cone.  Lateran.  IV,  Caput  reum  et  figurd  sphaeried,  anathema 

" Firmiter “  (supra,  p.  91).  sit.”  Denzinger’s  Enchiridion,  9th 

10  “Si  quis  dixerit  Domini  corpus  ed.,  n.  196. 

post  resurrectionem  fuisse  aethe-  11  Denzinger-Bannwart,  n.  344. 


THE  RESURRECTION 


105 


XX,  19;  XXVII,  63;  Mark  X,  34;  Luke  XVIII, 
33;  John  II,  18  sqq. ) .  He  proved  the  reality 
and  the  truth  of  His  resurrection  by  repeatedly 
appearing  to  His  disciples,  conversing  with  them, 
allowing  them  to  touch  His  sacred  body,  eating 
and  drinking  with  them,  and  so  forth.  (Matth. 
XXVIII,  17  sq. ;  Luke  XXIV,  41  sqq.;  John 
XX,  24  sqq.;  1  Cor.  XV,  6).  The  Apostles 
would  not  have  so  courageously  and  uncompro¬ 
misingly  stood  up  for  their  faith  in  the  Resur¬ 
rection  had  they  not  seen  and  conversed  with 
the  risen  Lord.  Cfr.  Acts  IV,  33:  “And  with 
great  power  12  did  the  Apostles  give  testimony 
of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.”  13 
Though  not  an  eye-witness,  St.  Paul  was  a  bold 
and  enthusiastic  herald  of  the  Resurrection :  “If 
Christ  be  not  risen  again,  then  is  our  preaching 
vain,  and  your  faith  is  also  vain.”  14 

That  Christ  rose  in  a  glorified  body  is  evi¬ 
denced  by  the  circumstances  surrounding  His 
Resurrection,15  and  by  the  fact  that  His  risen 
body  was  endowed  with  certain  attributes  which 
man  cannot  enjoy  except  in  a  transfigured 
state.16 

12  Svva/jLei  fieydXr],  virtute  magna.  15  Matth.  XXVIII,  i  sqq.;  Luke 

IS  Cfr.  Acts- II,  22  sqq.;  Ill,  15;  XXIV,  36  sqq.;  John  XX,  19  sqq. 

X,  40  sqq.;  XIII,  30  sqq.  16  This  point  will  be  developed  in 

14  i  Cor.  XV,  14;  cfr.  Rom.  X,  9.  Eschatology. 


io6 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


He  retained  the  marks  of  His  five  wounds  17  for  reasons 
of  congruity,  which  St.  Thomas  explains  as  follows :  “  It 

was  becoming  that  the  soul  of  Christ  in  the  Resurrection 
should  reassume  the  body  with  its  wounds.  First,  for  the 
glorification  of  Christ  Himself ;  secondly,  to  confirm  His 
disciples  in  their  faith  in  the  Resurrection;  third,  that  in 
supplicating  the  Father  for  us,  He  might  always  remind 
Him  of  what  He  had  suffered  for  men ;  fourth  to  recall 
the  divine  mercy  to  those  whom  He  had  redeemed,  by  ex¬ 
hibiting  to  them  the  marks  of  His  death ;  and,  lastly,  that 
on  Judgment  day  He  might  show  forth  the  justice  of  the 
judgment  by  which  [the  wicked]  are  damned.”  18 

That  Christ  really  and  truly  rose  from  the  dead  in  a 
glorified  body,  is  so  evident  from  Sacred  Scripture  that 
we  need  not  stop  to  prove  it  from  Tradition.19 

b)  In  connection  with  the  Resurrection  of  our 
Lord  the  Catholic  Church  has  always  held  two 
other  important  truths,  viz.:  ( i )  That  His  Res¬ 
urrection  is  the  prototype  of  a  general  “resurrec¬ 
tion  of  the  flesh,”  and  (2)  that  Christ  arose  by 
His  own  power. 


Both  these  truths  are  clearly  taught  in  the  famous 
Creed  drawn  up  by  the  Eleventh  Council  of  Toledo 
(A.  D.  675)  :  “  And  on  the  third  day,  raised  up  by  His 


17  Cfr.  John  XX,  27;  Apoc.  V,  6. 

18  5.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  54,  art.  4: 
" Conveniens  fuit  animam  Christi  in 
resurrectione  corpus  cum  cicatrici- 
bus  resumere :  primo  quidem  propter 
gloriam  ipsius  Christi  .  .  .;  secundo 
ad  confirmandum  corda  discipulorum 
circa  fidem  suae  resurrectionis ;  ter- 
tio  ut  Patri  pro  nobis  supplicans, 
quale  genus  mortis  pro  homine  per- 


tulerit,  semper  ostendat;  quarto  ut 
sua  morte  rcdemptis,  quam  miseri- 
corditer  sint  adiuti,  propositis  eius- 
dem  mortis  indiciis  insinuet;  po - 
stremo  ut  in  iudicio  [ultimo'],  quam 
iuste  damnentur,  ibidem  denuntiet .” 

19  On  the  whole  subject  cfr.  Billu- 
art,  De  Myst .  Christi,  diss.  12,  art. 
4  and  6;  G.  B.  Tepe,  Inst.  Theol., 
Vol.  I,  pp.  97  sqq.,  Paris  1894. 


THE  RESURRECTION 


107 

own  power,  He  rose  again  from  the  grave;  by  virtue  of 
this  example  of  our  Head  we  profess  that  there  will  be  a 
resurrection  of  the  flesh  for  all  the  dead.”  20  The  phrase 
“by  His  own  power”  ( virtute  propria)  points  to  an  ac¬ 
tive  rising  (resurgere) ,  which  is  more  than  a  miraculous 
awakening  (resuscitari) . 

The  dogma  is  clearly  contained  in  Sacred  Scripture. 
Cfr.  John  II,  19:  “Jesus  answered  and  said  to  them: 
Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it 
up.” 21  John  X,  17  sq. :  “  Therefore  doth  the  Father 

love  me:  because  I  lay  down  my  life,  that  I  may  take 
it  again.  No  man  taketh  it  away  from  me :  but  I  lay 
it  down  of  myself,  and  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down : 
and  I  have  power  to  take  it  up  again.”  22 

Christ  Himself  ascribes  this  power  to  His  consubstan- 
tiality  with  the  Father.  John  V,  21 :  “  For  as  the 

Father  raiseth  up  the  dead,  and  giveth  life :  so  the  Son 
also  giveth  life  to  whom  he  will.” 23  Hence,  if  Holy 
Scripture  elsewhere  speaks  of  our  Lord’s  being  raised  up 
by  the  Father, 24  this  is  obviously  an  appropriation,  based 
on  the  fact  that  the  efficient  cause  of  our  Saviour’s  Resur¬ 
rection  was  not  His  humanity,  which  had  been  resolved 
into  its  constituent  elements  by  death,  but  His  Divinity, 
which  remained  hypostatically  united  with  His  soul  and 
body.  The  Roman  Catechism  explains  this  as  follows : 
“  There  existed  a  divine  energy  as  well  in  the  body,  by 
which  it  might  be  reunited  to  the  soul,  as  in  the  soul,  by 
which  it  might  return  again  to  the  body,  and  by  which  He, 

20“Tertio  quoque  die  virtute  pro -  21  iyep<jof  excitabo. 

pria  sua  suscitatus  a  sepulcro  resur-  22  ei-ovciav  traXiv  Xafieiv 

rexit;  hoc  ergo  exemplo  capitis  no-  avTrjv . 

stri  confitemur  verarn  fieri  resurrec-  23  b  vlos  oils  deXei  £ looiroiei • 

tionem  carnis  omnium  mortuorum”  24  Acts  II,  24  sqq. ;  III,  13  sqq.; 

Denzinger-Bannwart,  n.  286.  Rom.  VIII,  1 1 ;  Gal.  I,  1. 


io8 


THE  WORK  OF  REDEMPTION 


by  His  own  power,  might  return  to  life  and  rise  again 
from  the  dead.”  25 

Readings  :  — *  Billuart,  De  Incarnatione,  diss.  19-20. —  Idem,  De 
Mysterio  Christi,  diss.  9-12. —  St.  Thomas,  Summa  Theologica,  3a, 
qu.  19-22;  qu.  24,  26;  qu.  46-56. —  Bellarmine,  De  Christo,  1.  IV, 
c.  6-16;  1.  V,  c.  1-10. —  De  Lugo,  De  Mysterio  Incarnationis, 
disp.  27  sqq.. — *  Franzelin,  De  V erbo  Incarnato,  sect.  4,  Rome 
1881. —  Oswald,  Soteriologie,  2nd  ed.,  Paderborn  1887. — *  Stentrup, 
S.  J.,  Soteriologia,  2  vols.,  Innsbruck  1889. —  G.  B.  Tepe,  Insti- 
tutiones  Theologicae,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  617  sqq.,  Paris  1896. —  Chr. 
Pesch,  S.  J.,  Praelectiones  Dogmaticae,  Vol.  IV,  3d  ed.,  pp.  201  sqq., 
Freiburg  1909. —  L.  Janssens,  De  Deo-Homine,  II,  Freiburg  1912. 
—  Hunter,  Outlines  of  Dogmatic  Theology ,  Vol.  II,  pp.  506  sqq., 
London  s.  a. —  Wilhelm-Scannell,  A  Manual  of  Catholic  The¬ 
ology,  Vol.  II,  pp.  181-195,  2nd  ed.,  London  1901. —  A.  Ritter, 
Christus  der  Erldser ,  Linz  1903. — *  B.  Dorholt,  Lehre  von  der 
Genugtuung  Christi,  Paderborn  1896. —  Muth,  Heilstat  Christi  als 
st  ellv  e  r  tret  end  cn  Genugtuung ,  Ratisbon  1904. —  K.  Staab,  Die 
Lehre  von  der  stellvertretenden  Genugtuung,  Paderborn  1908. — 
Pell,  Lehre  des  hi.  Athanasius  von  der  Siinde  und  Erldsung,  Pas- 
sau  1888. — Strater,  Erlosungslehre  des  hi.  Athanasius,  Freiburg 
1894. —  Weigl,  Heilslehre  des  hi.  Cyrill  von  Alexandrien,  Mainz 
1905. — J.  Riviere,  Le  Dogme  de  la  Redemption,  Paris  1905  (Eng¬ 
lish  translation,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  2  vols.,  London 
1909).  (A  criticism  of  this  work  in  Chr.  Pesch,  S.  J.,  Das  Siihne- 
Iciden  unseres  gottlichen  Erldscrs,  Freiburg  i.  B.  1916 — E. 
Krebs,  Der  Logos  als  Heiland  im  ersten  Jahrhundert,  Frei¬ 
burg  1910. —  E.  Hugon,  O.  P.,  Le  Mystcre  de  la  Redemption  (a  spec¬ 
ulative  pendant  to  Riviere’s  Le  Dogme  de  la  Redemption,  which  is 
mainly  historical),  Paris  1911. —  H.  N.  Oxenham,  The  Catholic 
Doctrine  of  the  Atonement:  An  Historical  Inquiry  into  its  Devel¬ 
opment  in  the  Church,  London  1865.  (This  work,  which  has  been 
lately  translated  into  French,  must  be  read  with  caution.  Cfr.  La 
Civilta  Cattolica,  Quad.  1431,  Feb.  5,  1910). —  J.  Kleutgen,  S.  J., 
Theologie  der  Forfeit,  Vol.  I,  2nd  ed.,  pp.  336  sqq.,  Munster  1870 
(against  Gunther). —  Friedlieb,  Leben  Jesu  Christi  des  Erlosers 
mit  neuen  historischen  und  chronologischen  Untersuchungen, 

25  Cat.  Rom.,  P.  I,  c.  6,  qu.  8:  set,  qua  et  licuit  sud  virtute  revivis- 

“  Divina  vis  turn  in  corpore  inerat,  cere  atque  a  mortuis  resurgere.” — 
qua  animae  iterum  coniungit,  turn  Cfr.  Chr.  Pesch,  Praelect.  Dogmat., 
in  animo,  qua  ad  corpus  reverti  pos •  Vol.  IV,  pp.  280  sqq. 


THE  RESURRECTION 


109 


Paderborn  1887. —  Grimm,  Leben  Jesu  nach  den  vier  Evangelien, 
7  vols.,  2nd  ed.,  Ratisbon  1890  sqq. —  Didon,  O.  P.,  Jesus  Christ, 
English  edition,  London  1895. —  J.  E.  Belser,  Geschichte  des  Lei- 
dens  und  Sterbens,  der  Auferstehung  und  Himmelfahrt  des  Herrn, 
2nd  ed.,  Freiburg  1913. —  W.  Humphrey,  S.  J.,  The  One  Mediator, 
London  s.  a. —  A.  J.  Maas,  S.  J.,  Christ  in  Type  and  Prophecy, 
Vol.  II,  pp.  13  sqq.,  New  York  1895. —  G.  W.  B.  Marsh,  Messianic 
Philosophy,  pp.  24  sqq.,  London  1908. —  Freddi-Sullivan,  S.  J., 
Jesus  Christ  the  Word  Incarnate,  pp.  191  sqq.,  St.  Louis  1904.—- 
J.  Tixeront,  Histoire  des  Dogmes,  Vol.  II,  3rd  ed.,  pp.  148  sqq., 
285  sqq.,  376  sqq.,  Paris  1909— B.  J.  Otten,  S.  J.,  A  Manual  of 
the  History  of  Dogmas,  Vol.  II,  St.  Louis  1918,  pp.  196  sqq.,  201 
sqq. 

See  also  the  references  in  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology,  2nd  ed., 
pp.  7  sq.,  St.  Louis  1916. 

*  The  asterisk  before  an  author’s  name  indicates  that  his  treatment 
of  the  question  is  especially  clear  and  thorough.  As  St.  Thomas  is  in¬ 
variably  the  best  guide,  the  omission  of  the  asterisk  before  his  name  never 
means  that  we  consider  his  work  in  any  way  inferior  to  that  of  other 
writers.  There  are  vast  stretches  of  theology  which  he  scarcely  touched. 


PART  II 

THE  THREE  OFFICES  OF  THE 

REDEEMER 


The  Redemption,  considered  as  an  objective 
fact,  must  be  subjectively  appropriated  by  each 
individual  human  being.  Hence  three  functions 
or  offices  on  the  part  of  our  Divine  Redeemer,  ( i ) 
that  of  High  Priest,  (2)  that  of  Prophet  or 
Teacher,  and  (3)  that  of  King. 


no 


CHAPTER  I 


Christ’s  priesthood; 

SECTION  i 

Christ’s  death  a  true  sacrifice 

The  present  Chapter  is  chiefly  concerned  with 
demonstrating,  ( i )  that  the  death  of  Christ  was 
a  true  sacrifice,  and  (2)  that  He  Himself  was  a 
true  priest.  It  is  these  facts  which  give  to  the 
Redemption  its  sacerdotal  and  hieratic  stamp  and 
furnish  us  with  the  key  to  the  philosophy  of  the 
atonement. 

1.  Definition  of  the  Term  "Bloody  Sac¬ 
rifice.” — A  sacrifice  is  "the  external  offering  up 
of  a  visible  gift,  which  is  destroyed,  or  at  least 
submitted  to  an  appropriate  transformation,  by  a 
lawful  minister  in  recognition  of  the  sovereignty 
of  God  and  in  order  to  appease  His  anger.” 

a)  This  definition,  which  will  be  more  fully  explained 
in  the  dogmatic  treatise  on  the  Holy  Eucharist,  embraces 
four  essential  elements : 

(a)  A  visible  gift  and  its  physical  or  moral  destruc¬ 
tion  or  transformation,  such  as  the  slaughtering  of  an 

hi 


1 12 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


animal,  the  burning  of  cereals,  the  pouring  out  of  a 
fluid,  etc. 

(/ 3 )  A  lawful  minister  or  priest  who  offers  the  gift  to 
God. 

(y)  An  exterior  act  of  worship,  consisting  in  the  phys¬ 
ical  presentation  of  the  gift. 

(8)  A  final  end  or  object,  which  is  the  acknowledgment 
of  God’s  supreme  dominion  and  the  appeasement  of  His 
anger. 

Applying  the  Scholastic  distinction  between  materia 
and  forma ,  we  find  that  the  materia  remota  of  a  sacrifice 
is  the  visible  gift  itself,  its  materia  proximo,  the  act  of  de¬ 
struction  or  transformation,  and  its  forma ,  the  sacrificial 
act  ( actio  sacrifica),  which  combines  and  unifies  both 
the  external  offering  of  the  visible  gift  and  the  intrinsic 
purpose  for  which  it  is  offered.  This  intrinsic  purpose 
or  object  is  the  main  factor,  because  it  informs  and  de¬ 
termines  the  external  act,  just  as  the  human  soul  informs 
and  determines  the  body.  Without  a  genuine  intention 
on  the  part  of  the  sacrificing  priest  there  is  no  sacrifice.1 

b)  The  twofold  purpose  of  every  sacrifice  is  the  ac¬ 
knowledgment  of  God’s  supreme  dominion  and  the  ap¬ 
peasement  of  His  anger. 

The  first  of  these  objects  is  attained  by  adoration,  the 
second  by  expiation. 

Adoration  is  the  formal  element  of  every  sacrifice,  i.  e., 
that  which  essentially  constitutes  it  a  sacrifice  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  term.  Expiation  does  not  enter  into 
the  essence  of  sacrifice,  but  is  a  merely  secondary 
factor,  because  conditioned  by  the  accidental  fact  of  sin. 
Since  both  thanksgiving  and  supplication,  when  addressed 
to  the  Almighty,  invariably  and  necessarily  partake  of  the 

l  Cfr.  St.  Thomas,  S.  Theol.,  2a  2ae,  qu.  85,  art  2. 


SACRIFICE 


113 

nature  of  absolute  worship,  sacrifices  offered  up  for  these 
two  purposes  have  no  relation  to  sin.  The  case  is  differ¬ 
ent  with  expiatory  sacrifices.  While  sin  has  neither  abol¬ 
ished  nor  debased,  but  rather  reinforced,  the  main  pur¬ 
pose  of  adoration,  namely  thanksgiving  and  supplication, 
it  has  added  a  new  object  which,  though  in  itself  second¬ 
ary,  has  become  inseparable  from  the  notion  of  sacrifice 
in  consequence  of  the  Fall. 

These  considerations  explain  the  usual  division  into 
sacrifices  of  adoration  ( sacrificia  latreutica) ,  sacrifices  of 
thanksgiving  (sacrificia  eucharistica) ,  sacrifices  of  sup¬ 
plication  or  petition  ( sacrificia  impetratoria) ,  and  sacri¬ 
fices  of  expiation  or  propitiation  ( sacrificia  propitiatoria) . 
As  these  four  objects  can  never  be  entirely  separated, 
the  various  kinds  of  sacrifice  owe  their  specific  appella¬ 
tions  solely  to  the  special  emphasis  laid  on  the  principal 
purpose  for  which  each  is  offered. 

c)  A  most  important  element  in  the  concept  of  sac¬ 
rifice  is  the  symbolic  substitution  of  some  other  creature 
for  man.  “  The  gift  takes  the  place  of  the  giver.  By 
sacrificing  an  object  over  which  he  has  control,  and 
offering  it  up  entirely  to  God,  man  acknowledges  God’s 
overlordship  over  his  person  and  life,  and  it  is  the  latter 
which  is  symbolically  offered  up  and  destroyed.” 2 
This  symbolism  is  based  on  the  very  nature  of  sac¬ 
rifice.  The  acknowledgment  of  God  as  the  sovereign 
Lord  of  the  universe  has  its  human  correlative  in 
man’s  humble  subjection  and  surrender  of  himself  to 
his  Maker.  The  most  precious  gift  which  man  has  re¬ 
ceived  from  God  is  life.  Since  he  cannot  surrender  this 

0 

—  God  demands  no  human  sacrifices  —  He  offers  it  up 
symbolically  by  destroying  or  transforming  and  present- 

2  Jos.  Dahlmann,  S.  J.,  Der  Idea-  sophie  im  Zeit alter  der  Opfermystik, 
lismus  der  indischen  Religionsphilo-  p.  22,  Freiburg  1901. 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


114 

in g  in  his  own  stead  some  living  or  inanimate  creature. 
This  vicarious  act  assumes  its  deepest  significance  in  the 
sacrifice  of  propitiation,  by  which,  in  addition  to  manifest¬ 
ing  the  sentiments  already  mentioned,  man  confesses  his 
guilt  and  admits  that  he  has  deserved  death  in  punishment 
for  his  sins.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  St.  Thomas  explains 
the  Old  Testament  holocausts.  “  The  slaughtering  of  ani¬ 
mals,”  he  says,  “  signifies  the  destruction  of  sins  and  that 
men  are  deserving  of  death  for  their  sins,  as  if  those  ani¬ 
mals  were  killed  in  their  stead  to  denote  the  expiation 
of  their  sins.”  3  The  ethical  significance  of  sacrifice  is 
based  on  this  same  consideration.  The  highest  act  of 
divine  worship,  coupled  as  it  ever  should  be  with  sin¬ 
cere  contrition  and  an  ardent  desire  to  be  reconciled  to 
God,  cannot  but  elevate,  cleanse,  and  sanctify  the  human 
heart,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  God’s  will  to 
save  all  men  and  the  legitimate  institution  of  the  sacri¬ 
ficial  rite  confirm  human  expectation  and  constitute  a  rich 
source  of  consolation. 

d)  The  Sacrifice  of  the  Cross  is  not  only  a  true 
sacrifice,  but  in  contradistinction  to  the  sacri - 
Hcium  incruentum  (Hebrew,  )  specifically  a 
bloody  sacrifice.  What  constitutes  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  two?  It  cannot  be  the  per¬ 
son  of  the  lawful  minister,  nor  yet  the  final 
object  of  all  sacrifice  (except  in  so  far  as  propi¬ 
tiation  must  plainly  be  the  prevailing  motive  of 
every  bloody  sacrifice).  Hence  we  shall  have  to 

3  S.  Theol.,  ia  2ae,  qu.  102,  art.  animalia  loco  eorum  occiderentur  ad 
3,  ad  5:  “Per  occisionem  anima-  significandam  expiationem  peccato- 
lium  significatur  destructio  pecca-  rum  ”  Cfr.  N.  Giehr,  The  Holy 
torum  et  quod  homines  erant  digni  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  pp.  35  sqq., 
occisione  pro  peccatis  suis,  ac  si  ilia  3rd  ed.,  St.  Louis  1908. 


A  BLOODY  SACRIFICE 


ii5 

seek  for  the  specific  difference  in  the  materia  and 

The  materia  remota  of  a  bloody  sacrifice,  as  its  very 
name  suggests,  must  be  a  living  creature  endowed  with 
blood  ( victima ,  hostia).  Its  materia  proxima  is  the 
slaying  of  the  victim,  accompanied  by  an  effusion  of 
the  life-giving  fluid  ( mactatio  cum  sanguinis  effusione). 
In  regard  to  the  physical  forma  there  is  room  for  a  differ¬ 
ence  of  opinion,  as  we  do  not  know  for  certain  whether 
the  sacrificial  act  ( actio  sacrifica),  strictly  so  called,  is 
the  slaying  of  the  victim  or  its  oblation.  The  latter 
opinion  is  the  more  probable,  though  not  certain.  First, 
because  the  act  of  slaying,  as  such,  with  its  con¬ 
sequent  shedding  of  blood,  does  not  necessarily  indicate 
the  purpose  of  the  sacrifice,  and  consequently  requires  a 
more  specific  determinant,  i.  e.,  the  act  of  oblation. 
Secondly,  because  in  the  Mosaic  sacrifice  the  victim  was 
slain  by  laymen  and  temple  servants,  while  the  oblation 
of  the  blood  was  a  function  reserved  to  the  lawfully 
appointed  priesthood.4  Third,  because  it  is  impossible 
to  assume  that  Christ’s  bloody  sacrifice  on  the  Cross  con¬ 
sisted  in  the  material  acts  of  cruelty  committed  by  His 
barbarous  executioners. 

Hence  a  bloody  sacrifice  must  be  defined  as  “  the  visible 
oblation  of  a  living  creature,  the  slaying  of  which  is 
accompanied  by  the  shedding  of  blood,  by  a  lawful  min¬ 
ister,  in  acknowledgment  of  the  supreme  sovereignty  of 
God,  and  especially  to  propitiate  His  anger.”  5 

2.  The  Dogma. — The  Church  has  formally 
defined,  against  the  Socinians  and  the  Rationalists, 

4  Cfr.  P.  Scholz,  Die  hi.  Alter-  5  Cfr.  Becanus,  De  Triplici  Sacri- 
tiimer  des  Volkes  Israel ,  II,  134  ficio,  Naturae,  Legis,  Gratiae,  Opusc, 
eqq.,  Ratiebon  1868.  II,  Lugduni  1631, 


n6 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


that  Christ’s  vicarious  atonement  was  a  bloody 
sacrifice,  made  for  the  purpose  of  reconciling 
the  human  race  to  God  ( sacriilcium  propitiato - 
rium. ) 

The  Council  of  Ephesus  (A.  D.  431)  declared  against 
Nestorius:  “For  He  offered  Himself  up  for  us  as  an 
odor  of  sweetness  to  God  the  Father.  Hence  if  any  one 
say  that  the  Divine  Logos  Himself  was  not  made  our 
High  Priest 6  and  Apostle  ...  let  him  be  anathema.”  7 
The  Council  of  Trent,  in  defining  the  Holy  Sacrifice 
of  the  Mass,  bases  its  definition  on  the  dogma  that 
Christ’s  bloody  death  on  the  Cross  was  a  true  sacrifice: 
“  Though  He  was  about  to  offer  Himself  once  on  the 
altar  of  the  Cross  unto  God  the  Father  .  .  .  that  He 
might  leave  a  visible  sacrifice  .  .  .  whereby  that  bloody 
sacrifice,  once  to  be  accomplished  on  the  Cross,  might  be 
represented,  .  .  .  He  offered  up  to  God  the  Father  His 
own  body  and  blood  under  the  species  of  bread  and 
wine  ...  [In  the  Mass]  that  same  Christ  is  contained 
and  immolated  in  an  unbloody  manner,  who  once  offered 
Himself  in  a  bloody  manner  on  the  altar  of  the  Cross. 
.  .  .  For  the  victim  is  one  and  the  same,  the  same  now 
offering  by  the  ministry  of  priests,  who  then  offered 
Himself  on  the  Cross,  the  manner  alone  of  offering  be¬ 
ing  different.”  8 


6  apx^pea- 

7  “Obtulit  enim  semetipsum  pro 
nobis  in  odorem  suavitatis  Deo  et 
Patri.  Si  quis  ergo  Pontificem  et 
Apostolum  nostrum  dicit  factum 
non  ipsum  Dei  Verbum  .  .  .,  ana¬ 
thema  sit”  Synod.  Ephes.,  can.  io. 
(Denzinger-Bannwart,  n.  122.) 

8  “Etsi  semel  seipsum  in  ara  cru- 
cis  morte  intercedente  Deo  Patri 
cblaturus  erat,  .  .  .  ui  relinqueret 


sacrificium,  quo  cruentum  illud 
semel  in  cruce  peragendum  reprae- 
sentaretur ,  .  .  .  corpus  et  san- 
guinem  suum  sub  speciebus  panis 
et  vini  Deo  Patri  obtulit.  .  .  .  [In 
Missa ]  idem  ille  Christus  .  .  .  in- 
cruente  immolatur,  qui  in  ara  crucis 
semel  seipsum  cruente  obtulit  .  .  . 
Una  eademque  est  hostia,  idem  nunc 
offerens  sacerdotum  ministerio,  qui 
seipsum  tunc  in  cruce  obtulit,  sola 


A  BLOODY  SACRIFICE 


n  7 

a)  The  Scriptural  proof  of  our  dogma  is  based 
partly  on  the  Old  and  partly  on  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment. 

a)  The  argument  from  the  Old  Testament 
may  be  stated  in  the  terms  of  a  syllogism,  thus: 
The  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Law,  which  were  almost 
exclusively  bloody  oblations,  culminated  in  the 
idea  that  the  Israelite,  conscious  of  having  de¬ 
served  death  for  his  sins,  substituted  brute  ani¬ 
mals  in  his  own  stead  and  offered  them  to  God  as 
a  means  of  propitiation.  Now  all  the  sacrifices  of 
the  Old  Law  were  merely  types  of  Christ’s  death 
on  the  Cross.  Therefore  Christ’s  death  must  be 
as  truly  a  vicarious  sacrifice  of  blood  and  propitia¬ 
tion  as  were  the  sacrifices  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Proof  of  the  Major  Premise.  There  is  no  need  of  dem¬ 
onstrating  the  proposition  that  the  Old  Testament  sacri¬ 
fices  were  true  sacrifices,  as  this  is  denied  by  no  one.  That 
the  Jews  practiced  symbolic  substitution  is  obvious  from 
the  sacrificial  rites  which  they  employed.  Aside  from  cer¬ 
tain  unbloody  oblations  of  altogether  minor  importance 
they  offered  three  different  kinds  of  sacrifices :  burnt  offer¬ 
ings,  peace  offerings,  and  offerings  for  sin.  All  three 
required  the  imposition  of  hands  on  the  head  of  the 
victim  to  symbolize  that  the  sins  of  the  people  were 
heaped  upon  it.  Thus,  when  the  multitude  had  trans¬ 
gressed  a  divine  command  through  ignorance,  they 
had  to  bring  a  sin-offering  to  the  door  of  the  taber- 

offerendi  ratione  diver sa.”  (Cone.  940;  cfr.  also  can.  3-4,  ibid.  n.  950, 
Trid.,  Sess.  XXII,  cap.  1  and  2  95 id 

Denzinger  Bannwart,  No.  938  and 


ii8  OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 

nacle  in  the  shape  of  a  calf.  Lev.  IV,  13-20:  “And 
the  ancients  of  the  people  shall  put  their  hands  upon 
the  head  thereof  before  the  Lord ;  and  the  calf  being 
immolated  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  the  priest  that  is 
anointed  shall  carry  off  the  blood  into  the  tabernacle  of 
the  testimony.  .  .  .  And  the  priest  praying  for  them, 
the  Lord  will  be  merciful  unto  them.”  On  the  Feast 
of  Expiation  two  buck  goats  were  led  up  to  the  door 
of  the  tabernacle,  and  one  of  them  was  slain  as  a 
sin  offering.  With  regard  to  the  other  the  Mosaic 
law  ordained  as  follows:  “Then  let  him  [the  high 
priest]  offer  the  living  goat :  and  putting  both  hands 
upon  his  head,  let  him  confess  all  the  iniquities  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  all  their  offences  and  sins :  and 
praying  that  they  may  light  on  his  head,  he  shall  turn 
him  out  by  a  man  ready  for  it,  into  the  desert.  And 
when  the  goat  hath  carried  all  their  iniquities  into  an 
uninhabited  land,  and  shall  be  let  go  into  the  desert, 
Aaron  shall  return  into  the  tabernacle  of  the  testimony.”  9 
What  was  thus  symbolized  in  the  sacrificial  rite  is  ex¬ 
plicitly  set  forth  in  the  prohibition  of  blood,  Lev.  XVII, 
11 :  “.  .  .  the  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood:  and 

I  have  given  it  to  you,  that  you  may  make  atonement 
with  it  upon  the  altar  for  your  souls,  and  the  blood  may 
be  for  an  expiation  of  the  soul.”  The  text  we  have 
previously  quoted  from  Isaias  (Is.  LIII,  4  sqq.),  derives 
its  deeper  significance  from  the  sacrificial  rite  described 
by  the  same  prophet  (Is.  LII,  15;  LIII,  7,  10) .10 

Proof  of  the  Minor  Premise.  The  minor  premise  of 
our  syllogism  can  be  demonstrated  from  St.  Paul’s  Epis¬ 
tle  to  the  Hebrews,  particularly  Chapters  8  to  10.  As 
the  Old  Law  had  but  “  a  shadow  of  the  good  things  to 

9  Lev.  XVI,  9;  XVI,  20  Sqq.  bauer,  Erklarung  des  Propheten 

Id  Supra,  p.  46.  Cfr.  Knaben-  Isaias,  Freiburg  1881, 


A  BLOODY  SACRIFICE 


119 

come/’ 11  so  in  particular  its  sacrifices  merely  prefigured 
the  one  great  sin-offering  on  the  Cross.  Being  “  weak 
and  needy  elements,”  it  was  impossible  that  “  the  blood 
of  oxen  and  goats  ”  should  “  take  away  sin.” 12  The 
student  will  be  able  to  appreciate  the  full  force  of  this 
argument  only  after  a  careful  perusal  of  the  whole  Epis¬ 
tle.  If  the  Mosaic  sacrifices  were  real  and  vicarious, 
this  must  be  true  in  a  far  higher  sense  of  the  sacrifice 
of  the  Cross,  which  they  foreshadowed.13 

P)  The  argument  from  the  New  Testament  is 
based  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  with  its 
explicit  assertion  that  the  typical  sacrifices  of  the 
Old  Law  found  their  consummation  and  perfec¬ 
tion  in  the  one  true  sacrifice  of  the  Cross.  In  a 
variety  of  phrases  St.  Paul  reiterates  the  funda¬ 
mental  truth  that,  as  priest  and  victim  in  one  per¬ 
son,  Jesus  Christ  by  a  single  bloody  offering 
atoned  for  the  sins  of  men  and  once  for  all  con¬ 
summated  their  eternal  salvation. 

To  quote  only  a  few  salient  passages :  “  For  if  the 

blood  of  goats  and  of  oxen,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer 
being  sprinkled,  sanctify  such  as  are  defiled,  to  the 
cleansing  of  the  flesh :  how  much  more  shall  the  blood 
of  Christ,  who  by  the  Holy  Ghost  offered  himself  un¬ 
spotted  unto  God,14  cleanse  our  conscience  from  dead 
works  to  serve  the  living  God  ?  ” 15  “  So  also  Christ 

was  offered  once  to  exhaust  the  sins  of  many.”  18  “  In 

11  Heb.  X,  1.  14  eavrbv  irpoar/veyKev  ci/xufxtv 

12  Heb.  X,  4.  Cfr.  Gal.  IV,  9.  tw  0ew. 

13  Cfr.  Franzelin,  De  V erbo  In-  15  Heb.  IX,  13-14. 

carnato,  thes.  49,  Rome  1881;  Hugo  18  dira^  irpoaevexOels  els  rb  7 roX- 
Weiss,  Die  messianischen  Vorbilder  \c5v  avevey  Kelv  a/xaprlas •  Heb. 
im  Alten  Testament,  Freiburg  1905.  IX,  28. 


120 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


the  which  will  we  are  sanctified  by  the  oblation  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  Christ  alone.”  17  “  But  this  man  [Christ] 

offering  one  sacrifice  for  sins,18  for  ever  sitteth  on  the 
right  hand  of  God.”  19  “  For  by  one  oblation  20  he  hath 

perfected  for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified.”  21 


The  sacrificial  character  of  the  death  of  our 
Divine  Lord  is  expressly  inculcated  in  many  other 
passages  of  the  New  Testament. 


Cfr.  Matth.  XX,  28:  “  Filius  hominis  non  venit 
ministrari,  sed  ministrare  et  dare  animam  suam  redemp- 
tionem  pro  multis  22 —  The  Son  of  man  is  not  come  to  be 
ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a 
redemption  for  many.”  Christ  here  emphasizes  three 
momenta,  viz. :  sacrifice,  atonement,  and  the  vicarious 
character  of  that  atonement.  “  To  give  one’s  life  ”  23  is  a 
distinctly  hieratic  and  sacrificial  term ;  “  for  many  ” 24 
denotes  vicarious  satisfaction,  and  “  redemption  ” 25  in¬ 
dicates  expiation.  It  follows  from  this  important  text 
that  the  expression  “  for  many  ”  or  “  for  all,”  26  which 
occurs  so  frequently  in  the  New  Testament,  when  used 
in  connection  with  sacrifice  means,  not  only  “  for  the 
benefit  of  many,”  but  also  “  instead  of  many.”  Cfr. 
Eph.  V,  2:  “  Tradidit  semetipsum  pro  nobis  oblationem 
et  hostiam  Deo 27  in  odorem  suavitatis  —  Christ  .  .  . 
hath  delivered  himself  for  us,  an  oblation  and  a  sacrifice 
to  God  for  an  odor  of  sweetness.” 28  1  Tim.  II,  6: 


17  Heb.  X,  xo. 

18  (uhv  inrep  afiapniov  irpoaev^y- 
Kas  Ovolav. 

19  Heb.  X,  1 2. 

20  pua  yhp  7 rpoaepop^. 

21  Heb.  X,  14. 

22  Kal  dovvai  rfjv  pvxTjv  avrov 
\irpov  avTi  tt oWaiv. 

23  Sovvai  ri/p  ^pvx'hv. 


24  avrl  ttoWup,  not  merely  xnrhp 
iro\\u>p. 

25  \vrpov  (strictly,  ransom). 

26  virep  ttoWcov,  pro  multis. 

27  irapedwKev  eavrbv  inrbp  ij/xuv 
irpo<T<popav  Kal  dvalav. 

28  7 rpo<T(f)opd  here  means  sacrifice 
in  general,  dvala>  bloody  sacrifice. 


A  BLOODY  SACRIFICE 


121 


“  Qui  dedit  redemptionem  semetipsum  pro  omnibus,29 
testimonium  temporibus  suis  —  Who  gave  himself  a  re¬ 
demption  for  all,  a  testimony  in  due  times.”  Referring 
to  the  Old  Testament  sacrifice  of  the  Paschal  lamb,  St. 
Paul  says  in  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (V,  7)  : 
“  Pascha  nostrum  immolatus  est  Christus  —  For  Christ 
our  pasch  is  sacrificed.”  The  expiatory  character  of 
our  Lord’s  death  is  expressly  asserted  in  Rom.  Ill,  25 : 
“  Quern  proposuit  Deus  propitiationem 30  per  fidem  in 
sanguine  ipsius  —  Whom  God  hath  proposed  to  be  a 
propitiation,  through  faith  in  his  blood,”  and  likewise  in 
the  first  Epistle  of  St.  John  (II,  2)  :  “ Ipse  est  propi- 

tiatio 81  pro  peccatis  nostris,  non  pro  nostris  autem 
tantum,  sed  etiam  pro  totius  mundi  —  He  is  the  propitia¬ 
tion  for  our  sins:  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for 
those  of  the  whole  world.”  32 


b)  Christian  Tradition  has  from  the  first  faith¬ 
fully  adhered  to  the  obvious  teaching  of  Holy 
Scripture  in  this  matter. 


The  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  which  was  prob¬ 
ably  composed  at  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Nerva  (A.  D. 
96-98)  ,38  contains  the  following  passage :  “  For  our 

sins  he  was  going  to  offer  the  vessel  of  the  spirit  [i.  e.f 
His  sacred  humanity]  as  a  sacrifice,34  in  order  that  the 
type  established  in  Isaac,  who  was  sacrificed  upon  the 
altar,  might  be  fulfilled.”  35  Tertullian  expresses  himself 
in  a  similar  strain :  “  Christ,  who  was  led  like  a  sheep  to 


29  f,  5ovs  eavrop  apriXvTpov  vtt ep 
TrapTWP-  ’A prCKvrpov  here  means 
a  ransom  given  vicariously,  by  a 
representative. 

30  IXaarripLOP  =  a  sacrifice  of  pro¬ 
pitiation. 

31  IXaafxos- 


32  Cfr.  2  Cor.  V,  21. 

33  Cfr.  Bardenhewer-Shahan,  Pa- 
trology,  p.  24. 

34  Z/xeXXe  .  .  .  irpocrcpepeiv  dvalap • 

35  Ep.  Barn.,  c.  7,  n.  3.  (Ed. 
Funk,  I,  23.) 


122 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


the  slaughtering  pen,  had  to  be  made  a  sacrifice  for  all 
nations."  36 

3.  Theological  Problems. — Christ  vicari¬ 
ously  made  atonement  for  us  by  immolating  Him¬ 
self;  consequently,  He  is  priest,  acceptant,  and 
victim  all  in  one.  This  gives  rise  to  a  number  of 
subtle  theological  problems,  which  in  the  main 
may  be  reduced  to  three  1  (a)  Was  it  in  His 

Godhead  or  manhood  that  Christ  combined  the 
double  function  of  victim  and  priest?  (b)  In 
what  sense  did  He  simultaneously  offer  and 
accept  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross?  (c)  Wherein 
precisely  did  the  actio  sacrifica  of  His  bloody 
sacrifice  consist? 

a)  The  first  question  must  be  decided  on 
Christological  principles  as  follows.  The  victim 
(victim a,  hostia)  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross  was 
the  Godman,  or,  more  specifically,  the  Divine 
Logos  in  person,  though  not,  of  course,  through 
the  functions  of  His  Divine,  but  those  of  His 
human  nature. 

To  assert  that  the  human  nature  of  our  Lord  alone 
was  sacrificed  on  the  Cross  would  be  equivalent  to  Nes- 
torianism.  To  hold  that  it  was  the  Godhead  as  such 
that  was  crucified  and  sacrificed,  would  savor  of  Theo- 
paschitic  Monophysitism.  Both  heretical  extremes  are 
avoided  by  saying  that  the  Divine  Logos  was  indeed 

S6  Adv.  Iud.,  c.  13.  For  other  Genugtuung  Christi,  §  7-10,  Pader- 
Patristic  texts  bearing  on  this  sub-  born  1891. 
ject  see  Dorholt,  Die  Lehre  von  der 


THEOLOGICAL  PROBLEMS 


123 


sacrificed  ( principium  quod),  but  only  according  to  His 
passible  manhood  ( principium  quo).  This  proposition 
is  an  immediate  deduction  from  the  dogma  of  the 
Hypostatic  Union. 

A  similar  answer  may  be  given  to  the  cognate  question : 
In  what  way  did  Christ  officiate  as  a  priest?  In  other 
words,  Did  He  offer  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross  ( i .  e.,  Him¬ 
self)  to  God  in  His  human  or  in  His  Divine  Nature? 
The  correct  answer  depends  on  a  true  conception  of 
the  nature  of  the  Hypostatic  Union.  Nestorius  believed 
that  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Logos-Son  were  two  separate 
and  distinct  persons,  and  hence  he  was  entirely  consistent 
in  teaching  that  the  man  Jesus  alone  was  a  high  priest,  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  Divine  Logos.37  The  same  con¬ 
clusion  was  forced  upon  the  Socinians,  who  denied  the 
Trinity  and  consequently  also  the  Divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ.  Though  the  Monophysites  held  a  diametrically 
opposite  opinion,  they  too  were  perfectly  consistent  in 
regarding  the  Divine  Nature  of  Christ  as  the  instrument 
of  mediation,  redemption,  and  the  priesthood;  for  they 
imagined  Christ’s  humanity  to  have  been  absorbed  and 
destroyed  by  His  Divinity.  We  cannot,  however,  regard 
without  surprise  the  illogical  attitude  of  certain  older 
Protestant  divines,  who,  despite  their  orthodox  teaching 
on  the  Hypostatic  Union,  either  showed  Nestorian  lean¬ 
ings,  as  e .  g.  Francis  Stancarus  (d.  1574),  or,  like  cer¬ 
tain  Calvinists  and  Zwinglians  in  Switzerland,  adopted 
the  Monophysitic  view  that  Christ  was  our  Mediator  and 
High  Priest  qua  Logos  and  not  qua  man.38  The  truth 
lies  between  these  extremes.  The  Godman  was  a  true 
priest,  not,  however,  in  His  divine,  but  solely  in  His 
human  nature.39 

37  Cfr.  Concilium  Ephes.,  can.  io.  V.  supra ,  p.  116. 

38  For  details  consult  Bellarmine,  De  Christo,  V,  2- 3. 

39  Cfr.  St.  Thomas,  S.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  22,  art.  2. 

.  <9 


124 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


b)  The  second  question  is:  How  are  we  to 
conceive  the  relation  of  Christ  in  His  capacity  as 
sacrificing  priest,  to  Christ  as  the  Divine  Logos,; 
to  whom  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross  was  offered? 
To  solve  this  problem  correctly  we  shall  have  to 
bear  in  mind  the  truths  set  forth  in  the  first  part 
of  this  treatise  with  regard  to  the  mediatorship 
of  our  Lord.40 

It  will  not  do  to  represent  the  first  Person  of  the 
Blessed  Trinity  as  the  sole  acceptor  of  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Cross,  and  Christ  merely  as  the  sacrificing  priest, 
though  this  opinion  has  found  some  defenders  among 
Catholic  divines.  It  was  the  Trinity,  or  God  qua  God, 
who  had  been  offended  by  sin ;  consequently  the  sacrifice 
of  the  Cross  had  to  be  offered  up  as  a  propitiation  to 
the  entire  Trinity.  Hence  Christ  not  only  offered  up 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross,  but  He  also  accepted  it,  though 
of  course  only  in  His  capacity  as  God,  conjointly  with  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Patristic  phrase, 
adopted  by  the  Council  of  Trent,  that  Christ  “  offered 
Himself  unto  God  the  Father,”  must  therefore  be  ex¬ 
plained  as  an  appropriation.41 

From  what  we  have  said  it  appears  that  Christ  exer¬ 
cised  in  a  most  wonderful  manner  three  distinct  func¬ 
tions,  viz.:  that  of  sacrificial  victim,  that  of  the  sacrificing 
priest,  and  that  of  the  accepting  God.  As  God  He  ac¬ 
cepts  His  own  sacrifice;  as  Godrnan  (or  Logos)  He  is 
both  victim  ( victima )  and  sacrificing  priest  (sacerdos) , 
though  only  according  to  His  human  nature.  St.  Augustine 

40  Supra,  pp.  5  sqq.  Preuss,  The  Divine  Trinity,  pp.  244 

41  V.  supra,  pp.  67  sq.  On  the  sqq. 

Divine  Appropriations  see  Pohle- 


THEOLOGICAL  PROBLEMS 


125 


beautifully  explains  this  in  his  famous  work  De  Civitate 
Dei.  “  And  hence  that  true  Mediator,  in  so  far  as,  by  as¬ 
suming  the  form  of  a  servant,  He  became  the  Mediator 
between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  though  in 
the  form  of  God  He  received  [accepted]  sacrifice  to¬ 
gether  with  the  Father,  with  whom  He  is  one  God,  yet 
in  the  form  of  a  servant  He  chose  rather  to  be  than 
to  receive  a  sacrifice,  that  not  even  by  this  instance  any 
one  might  have  occasion  to  suppose  that  sacrifice  should 
be  rendered  to  any  creature.  Thus  He  is  both  the 
Priest  who  offers  and  the  Sacrifice  offered.,,  42 


c)  As  regards  the  sacrificial  act  itself,  it  did 
not  formally  consist  in  the  killing  of  the  victim. 


To  hold  that  it  did,  would  involve  the  blasphemous 
conclusion  that  the  sacrificing  priests  on  Calvary  were 
the  brutal  soldiers  who  tortured  our  Lord  and  nailed 
Him  to  the  Cross.  No,  the  real  priest  was  Jesus  Christ 
Himself ;  His  executioners  were  merely  unconscious  in¬ 
struments  in  the  hands  of  Providence. 

If  Christ  was  the  sacrificing  priest,  it  follows  that 
He  alone  performed  the  sacrificial  act. 

This  sacrificial  act  did  not  consist  in  self-immolation. 
That  would  have  been  sheer  suicide.  It  consisted  in  the 
voluntary  oblation  of  His  Blood,  which  He  allowed  to 
be  shed  (extrinsic  factor)  and  which  He  offered  to  Al¬ 
mighty  God  with  a  true  sacrificial  intent  (intrinsic  factor). 
It  was  this  voluntary  oblation  of  His  life  and  blood 


42  De  Civ .  Dei,  X,  2 0.  “Verus 
tile  mediator,  inquantum  formam 
servi  accipiens  mediator  effectus  est 
Dei  et  hominum,  homo  Christus 
lesus,  quum  in  forma  Dei  sacrificium 
cum  Patre  sumat  [ acceptet ],  cum 
quo  et  unus  Deus  est,  tamen  in 


forma  servi  sacrificium  maluit  esse 
quam  sumere,  ne  vel  hac  occasione 
quisquam  existimaret  cuilibet  sacri - 
ficandum  esse  creaturae.  Per  hoc  et 
sacerdos  est,  ipse  offerens,  ipse  et 
oblatio.”  (Cfr.  De  Trinit.,  IV,  14, 
19). 


.126  OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 

(oblatio  vitae  et  sanguinis)  which  constituted  the  formal 
element,  and  consequently  the  essence  of  the  sacrifice  of 
the  Cross.43 

This  also  explains  why  martyrdom  is  not  a  true  sac¬ 
rifice.  It  has  not  been  instituted  as  such  by  God,  and, 
furthermore,  no  martyr  can  dispose  of  his  life  and  blood 
with  the  sovereign  liberty  enjoyed  by  our  Lord,  who  had 
absolute  control  over  all  the  circumstances  surrounding 
His  death  and  gave  up  His  soul  when  and  how  He 
pleased.44 

43  Cfr.  John  X,  18. 

44  Cfr.  Franzelin,  De  Verbo  In- 
carnato,  thes.  50;  Belser,  Das  Evan- 


gelium  des  hi.  Johannes,  pp.  511 
sqq.,  Freiburg  1905. 


SECTION  2 

CHRIST  A  TRUE  PRIEST 

“  Priest  ”  and  “  Sacrifice  ”  being  correlative  terms, 
the  priesthood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  a  logical  and 
necessary  corollary  of  His  sacrifice  on  the  Cross.  Sa¬ 
cred  Scripture  expressly  confirms  this  deduction. 

The  concept  of  “  priesthood  ”  embraces  two  essential 
elements,  viz,:  (i)  unction  or  ordination,  and  (2)  the 
offering  of  sacrifice.  To  these  may  be  added,  as  an 
integral  part,  sacerdotal  prayer.  In  the  case  of  Christ, 
moreover,  the  Bible  lays  special  stress  (3)  on  the  eter¬ 
nity  of  His  priesthood.  We  shall  develop  these  consid¬ 
erations  in  the  form  of  three  separate  theses. 

Thesis  I :  Christ’s  unction  or  ordination  to  thfe  office 
of  high  priest  took  place  at  the  moment  of  His  In¬ 
carnation. 

This  thesis  voices  the  common  teaching  of 
Catholic  divines. 

Proof.  If,  as  we  shall  show  in  our  next  thesis, 
Christ  was  truly  “a  priest  according  to  the  order 
of  Melchisedech,”  1  His  priesthood  must  have 
begun  simultaneously  with  His  Incarnation,  i.  e., 
at  the  moment  in  which  the  Divine  Logos  as¬ 
sumed  human  flesh  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin. 
The  Divine  Logos  could  not  have  been  a  priest  be- 

1  Heb.  V,  6;  VI,  20. 

127 


128 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


fore  His  Incarnation,  because  then  He  was  not 
yet  the  Godman.  Nor  was  He  anointed  or  conse¬ 
crated  by  any  special  act  subsequent  to  His  Incar¬ 
nation.  Hence  His  ordination  must  have  coin¬ 
cided  with  the  inception  of  the  Hypostatic  Union. 

This  view  is  confirmed  by  St.  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  Heb.  X,  5  :  “  Ideo  ingrediens  mundum  2 

dicit:  Hostiam  et  oblationem  noluisti,  corpus  autem 
aptasti  mihi  —  Wherefore  when  he  cometh  into  the 
world,  he  saith :  Sacrifice  and  oblation  thou  wouldest 
not :  but  a  body  thou  hast  fitted  to  me.” 3  Here  the 
“  fitting  of  a  body  ”  for  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross, 
and  consequently  the  beginning  of  Christ’s  priesthood,  is 
represented  as  coincident  with  His  “  coming  into  the 
world,”  i.  e.,  His  conception. 

In  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  same  Epistle  the  Apostle 
emphasizes  the  fact  that  “  every  high  priest  taken  from 
among  men,  is  ordained  for  men  in  the  things  that  apper¬ 
tain  to  God,”  and  then  declares  that  Christ  did  not  or¬ 
dain  Himself,  but  was  “  called  by  God.”  Heb.  V,  4  sq. : 
“  Nec  quisquam  sumit  sibi  honorem,  sed  qui  vocatur  a 
Deo  4  tamquam  Aaron;  sic  et  Christus  non  semetipsum 
cl  arid  c  amt,  ut  pontifex  fieretp  sed  qui  locutus  est  ad  eum 
[=  Pater]  :  Filius  meus  es  tu}  ego  hodie  genui  te  — 
Neither  doth  any  man  take  the  honor  to  himself,  but 
he  that  is  called  by  God,  as  Aaron  was.  So  Christ  also 
did  not  glorify  himself,  that  he  might  be  made  a  high 
priest ;  but  he  that  said  unto  him :  Thou  art  my  Son, 
this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.” 6  The  “  call  ”  to  the 
priesthood  which  Christ  received  from  His  Father  was 

2  elcrepxo/jicvos  eh  tov  kov/xov •  5  y evyjOijvai  apx^pea- 

3  Cfr.  Ps.  XXXIX,  7.  6  Heb.  V,  4  sq. 

4  KaXovfievos  ai to  tov  Geou* 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  PRIEST 


129 


the  command  to  redeem  the  human  race.  This  command 
went  into  effect  at  the  moment  of  His  conception.  Con¬ 
sequently,  Christ’s  priesthood  began  simultaneously  with 
the  unio  hypostatica. 

A  third  argument  for  our  thesis  is  based  on  the  Sa¬ 
viour’s  proper  name,  Christus,  which  means  the  Anointed 
One  Kar  l£oxr)v.7  Whereas  the  Levites  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  were  anointed  to  the  ministry  by  an  accidental 
unction  with  visible  oil,8  the  Godman  Jesus  Christ, 
by  virtue  of  the  Hypostatic  Union,  is  substantially 
anointed  with  the  invisible  oil  of  Divinity.  This  sub¬ 
stantial  unction,  on  account  of  the  object  and  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  Redemption,  stands  in  intimate  relation¬ 
ship  to  the  priestly  function  which  He  exercised  in  offer¬ 
ing  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross,  and  therefore  the  Hypo¬ 
static  Union  as  such  must  be  regarded  as  Christ’s 
substantial  ordination  to  the  priesthood. 

Some  of  the  Fathers  appear  to  teach  that  our  Lord’s 
ordination  took  place  before  His  Incarnation.  It  is  to 
be  noted,  however,  that  their  manner  of  expression  is 
distinctly  proleptic.  What  they  mean  is,  that  it  was  by 
His  Incarnation  that  the  not  yet  incarnate  Logos  was 
constituted  a  priest.  Certain  other  Fathers  seem  to 
regard  Christ’s  baptism  in  the  Jordan  as  the  beginning  of 
His  priesthood.  Rightly  understood,  however,  these 
Fathers  do  not  assert  that  Christ  became  a  high  priest 
when  He  received  baptism,  but  merely  that  he  exercised 
His  priesthood  for  the  first  time  on  that  occasion.  There 
is  a  clear-cut  distinction  between  an  office  and  the  exer¬ 
cise  of  its  functions;  the  former  differs  from  the  latter 
as  potency  differs  from  act.9 

7  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology,  s  Cfr.  Petavius,  De  Incarn.,  XII, 

pp.  228  sq.  3  and  11. 

8  Cfr.  Exod.  XXIX,  1  sqq.;  Lev. 

VIII,  1  sqq. 


130 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


Thesis  II :  During  His  terrestrial  life  Christ  was  a 
true  high  priest  who  exercised  His  sacerdotal  func¬ 
tions  by  offering  sacrifice  and  prayer. 

This  proposition  embodies  an  article  of  faith. 

Proof.  The  Council  of  Trent  defines :  “Quo- 
niam  sub  priori  Testamento  teste  Apostolo  Paulo 
propter  levitici  sacerdotii  imbecillitatem  consum- 
matio  non  erat,  oportuit  Deo  Patre  misericor- 
diarum  it  a  ordinante  sacerdotem  alium  secundum 
ordinem  Melchisedech  surgere  D.  N.  Iesum  Chri¬ 
stum ,  qui  posset  omnes,  quotquot  sane  title  andi  es- 
sent ,  consummare  et  ad  perfectum  adducere.” 
Anglice:  “Forasmuch  as,  under  the  former  Testa¬ 
ment,  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Apostle 
Paul,  there  was  no  perfection,  because  of  the 
weakness  of  the  Levitical  priesthood;  there  was 
need,  God  the  Father  of  mercies  so  ordaining, 
that  another  priest  should  rise,  according  to  the 
order  of  Melchisedech,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who  might  consummate,  and  lead  to  what  is  per¬ 
fect,  as  many  as  were  to  be  sanctified.”  10 

The  heretical  antithesis  of  this  dogma  is  the 
Socinian  teaching  that  the  priesthood  of  our  Lord 
was  in  no  sense  an  earthly  but  exclusively  a 
heavenly  priesthood.11 

a)  That  the  priesthood  of  our  Divine  Lord 

10  Cone.  Trid.,  Sess.  XXII,  cap.  i.  11  Cfr.  F.  Socinus,  De  Christo 
(Denzinger-Bannwart,  n.  938.)  Servatore,  P.  II,  c.  15. 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  PRIEST 


131 


was  really  and  truly  an  earthly  priesthood  can 
easily  be  proved  from  Sacred  Scripture. 

a)  To  begin  with  the  Old  Testament,  we  need 
but  point  to  Psalm  CIX,  the  Messianic  character 
of  which  is  guaranteed  by  Christ  Himself.12  The 
fourth  verse  reads  as  follows :  “Thou  art  a 
priest  for  ever  according  to  the  order  of  Melchi¬ 
sedech.”  Melchisedech  was  an  earthly  priest; 
consequently  the  priesthood  of  Christ  must  be  an 
earthly  priesthood.13 

/?)  The  prophet  Isaias,  pointing  to  the  “Man 
of  sorrows/’  L  e.,  the  future  Messias,  presages 
that  “he  shall  sprinkle  many  nations.”  14  This 
sprinkling,  from  the  context,  can  only  mean 
a  sacrificial  sprinkling  with  blood  ( aspersio  san¬ 
guinis)  .15 

y)  No  other  sacred  writer  has  portrayed  the 
earthly  priesthood  of  our  Lord  so  grandly  as  St. 
Paul,  whose  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  constitutes 
one  prolonged  refutation  of  Socinianism.16  The 
gist  of  this  Epistle  may  be  summarized  as 
follows:  The  priesthood  of  Melchisedech  was 
far  superior  to  the  Levitical  priesthood,  but 
the  priesthood  of  Christ  is  infinitely  superior  even 


12  Matth.  XXIII,  43  sqq. 

13  On  the  heresy  of  the  Melchise- 
dechians  (who  held  that  Melchise¬ 
dech  was  not  a  man  but  an  incarna¬ 
tion  of  the  Logos)  see  St.  Augus¬ 
tine,  De  Haeres.,  n.  34;  cfr.  Blunt, 
Dictionary  of  Sects ,  pp.  304  sq., 
new  impression,  London  1903. 

14  Is.  LII,  15. 


15  Cfr.  Is.  LIII,  3  sqq.;  Lev. 
XVI,  18  sq.;  Heb.  IX,  14  sqq. 

16  A  detailed  analysis  of  St. 
Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  will 
be  found  in  Franzelin,  De  Verbo 
Incarnato,  thes.  48,  n.  ii;  cfr.  also 
Chr.  Pesch,  Prael.  Dogmat.,  Vol. 
IV,  3rd  ed.,  pp.  291  sq. 


132 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


to  the  priesthood  of  Melchisedech.  Therefore, 
Christ  is  the  holiest,  the  greatest,  the  most  perfect, 
in  fact  the  sole  High  Priest,  and  He  exercised  His 
priesthood  in  the  perfect  sacrifice  of  the  Cross.17 

b)  But  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross  was  not  the 
only  sacerdotal  function  performed  by  our  Divine 
Redeemer.  He  also  officiated  as  High  Priest 
when,  at  the  Last  Supper,  He  instituted  the  Holy 
Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  when  He  pronounced 
the  sublime  prayer  for  His  disciples  recorded 
in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  the  Gospel  of  St. 
John.18 

A  priest  does  not  always  pray  in  his  official  capacity 
as  priest;  some  of  his  prayers  are  strictly  private  and 
personal.  It  is  only  when  he  pronounces  portions  of  the 
sacrificial  rite,  such  as  the  Mass,  or  liturgical  prayers  inti¬ 
mately  connected  therewith,  as  those  of  the  Breviary,  that 
his  prayer  assumes  a  sacerdotal  or  hieratic  character. 
Christ’s  prayer  for  His  disciples  was  a  strictly  sacerdotal 
or  hieratic  act,  because  of  its  intimate  relation  to  the  sacri¬ 
fice  of  the  Cross.  The  same  is  true  of  the  prayers  which 
He  uttered  at  the  crucifixion.  It  is  rather  difficult  to  draw 
a  clear-cut  line  of  demarcation  between  strictly  hieratic 
and  purely  private  prayers  in  the  case  of  our  Divine  Lord, 
because  His  whole  interior  life  was  inseparably  inter¬ 
woven  with  His  mission  as  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  and 
therefore  also  with  His  priesthood.  However,  we  may 
apply  the  term  “  private  ”  in  a  wider  sense  to  those 

17  The  Patristic  argument  for  our  hood  may  be  best  studied  in  St. 
thesis  is  developed  by  Pesch,  op.  cit.,  Thomas,  Sutnma  Theologica,  3a,  qu. 
pp.  292  sq.  The  teaching  of  the  22  art.  1. 

Scholastics  on  Christ’s  earthly  priest-  18  John  XVII,  1-26. 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  PRIEST 


133 


prayers  which  He  offered  up,  not  for  His  Apostles,  or 
the  human  race  in  general,  but  for  Himself,  in  order  to 
obtain  personal  favors  from  His  Heavenly  Father,  as,  for 
instance,  when  He  asked  on  Mount  Olivet  that  the  chalice 
be  removed  from  His  lips,19  or  when  He  petitioned  for 
His  own  glorification. 

There  is  an  essential  difference  between  prayer  and 
sacrifice,  which  should  be  emphasized  here.  Christ  was 
able  to  pray  for  Himself,  but  He  was  not  able  to  offer 
sacrifice  for  Himself.  This  has  been  clearly  defined  by 
the  Council  of  Ephesus  (A.  D.  431)  :  “  If  any  one  .  .  . 

assert  that  He  [Christ]  offered  Himself  as  a  sacrifice 
for  Himself,  and  not  rather  for  us  alone,  (for  He  who 
knew  absolutely  no  sin  needed  no  sacrifice),  let  him  be 
anathema/' 20 

Thesis  III:  Christ’s  priesthood  continues  everlast¬ 
ingly  in  Heaven. 

This  proposition  also  embodies  an  article  of 
faith. 

Proof.  In  Christology  21  we  concluded  from 
the  eternity  of  Christ’s  priesthood  to  the  insep¬ 
arability  of  the  Hypostatic  Union.  Here  we 
have  to  prove  the  antecedent.  The  eternity  of 
Christ’s  priesthood  is  an  article  of  faith,  because 
clearly  contained  in  Sacred  Scripture.  But  the 
manner  in  which  He  exercises  His  sacerdotal 

19  Cfr.  Heb.  V,  7.  Bannwart,  n.  122). — On  Christ’s 

20  "Si  quis  .  .  .  dicit,  quod  pro  praying  cfr.  St.  Thomas,  S.  Theol., 

se  obtulisset  semetipsum  oblationem,  3a,  qu.  21  and  L.  Janssens,  De 

et  non  potius  pro  nobis  solis  ( non  Deo-Homine,  Vol.  I,  pp.  720  sqq., 

enint  eguit  oblatione,  qui  peccatum  Freiburg  1901. 

omnino  nescivit),  anathema  sit.”  21  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology,  pp. 
Cone.  Eph.,  can.  10  (Denzinger*  74  sqq. 


134 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


office  in  Heaven  remains  to  be  determined  by  the¬ 
ological  reasoning. 

a)  The  eternity  of  our  Lord’s  priesthood  is 
taught  both  directly  and  indirectly  in  St.  Paul’s 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

a)  The  Apostle  expressly  applies  to  Christ  the  Mes¬ 
sianic  verse  :  “  Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever  22  according  to 

the  order  of  Melchisedfech.”  23  That  “  for  ever  ”  in  this 
passage  means  eternity,  not  a  parte  ante  but  a  parte  post, 
and  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  term,  appears  from  St. 
Paul’s  way  of  arguing  in  ITeb.  VII,  I  sqq.,  where  he 
opposes  our  Lord’s  “  everlasting  priesthood  ”  to  the  tem¬ 
poral  priesthood  of  the  Levites.  Moreover,  he  distinctly 
says  in  Heb.  VII,  23  sq. :  “  Alii  quidem  plures  facti  sunt 
sacerdotes,  idcirco  quod  morte  prohiberentur  permanere  ; 
hie  autem  eo  quod  maneat  in  aeternum,2i  sempiternum 
habet  sacerdotium  25 —  And  the  others  indeed  were  made 
many  priests,  because  by  reason  of  death  they  were  not 
suffered  to  continue :  but  this,  for  that  he  continueth  for 
ever,  hath  an  everlasting  priesthood.” 

P)  Regarding  the  manner  in  which  Christ  ex¬ 
ercises  His  eternal  priesthood  in  Heaven,  Revela¬ 
tion  teaches  us  nothing  beyond  the  fact  that  He 
is  “always  living  to  make  intercession  for  us,”  26 
which  is  a  truly  sacerdotal  function,  because,  as 
St.  Paul  assures  us,  it  bears  an  intimate  relation 
to  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross.  Hence  we  may 

22  els  rbv  altiva-  25  dirapd^arov  $xei  TVJ/  leper 

23  Ps.  CIX,  4.  cvvyjv- 

24  Sib.  to  pieveiv  a iirov  els  rbv  20  Heb.  VII,  25;  Rom.  VIII,  34. 
alcove l* 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  PRIEST 


135 


conclude  that  our  Lord’s  intercession  for  us  in 
Heaven  consists  in  everlastingly  asserting  the 
sacrifice  of  the  Cross. 

Cfr.  Heb.  VII,  24  sqq. :  “  Sempiternum  habet  sacer- 
dotium;  unde  et  salvare  in  perpetuum  potest  accedentes 
per  semetipsum  ad  Deum,  semper  vivens  ad  interpel- 
landum  pro  nobis:  talis  enim 27  decebat  ut  nobis  esset 
pontifex ,28  .  .  .  qui  non  habet  necessitatem  quotidie 
,  .  .  hostias  offerre ;  hoc  enim  fecit  semel  seipsum  offer- 
endo — [He]  hath  an  everlasting  priesthood,  whereby  he 
is  able  also  to  save  for  ever  them  that  come  to  God 
by  him ;  always  living  to  make  intercession  for  us.  For 
it  was  befitting  that  we  should  have  such  a  high  priest 
.  .  .  who  needeth  not  daily  ...  to  offer  sacrifices  .  .  . 
for  this  he  did  once,  in  offering  himself.” 

St.  John,  too,  describes  Christ’s  heavenly  intercession 
as  intimately  connected  with  and  based  upon  the  sacri¬ 
fice  of  the  Cross.  Cfr.  1  John  II,  1  sq. :  "  Sed  et  si 
quis  peccaverit,  advocatum 29  habemus  apud  Patrem 
Iesum  Christum  instum;  et  ipse  est  propitiatio 30  pro 
peccatis  nostris  —  But  if  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advo¬ 
cate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  just:  and  he  is 
the  propitiation  for  our  sins.”  The  same  Apostle  in  the 
Apocalypse  represents  Christ  figuratively  as  a  slain  lamb, 
i.  e.y  a  transfigured  sacrificial  victim.  Apoc.  V,  6 :  "  Et 

vidi  .  .  .  Agnum  stantem  tamquam  occisum 31  —  And  I 
saw  ...  a  Lamb  standing  as  it  were  slain.”  In  this  light 
St.  Ambrose’s  conception  of  the  relation  existing  between 
Christ’s  heavenly  intercession  and  the  marks  of  the  five 
wounds  in  His  glorified  body,  as  indelible  witnesses 

27  y dp.  so  i\a<rfios  =  a  sacrifice  of  pro- 

28  apxiepev*’  pitiation. 

29  napdicXrjTOv .  31  us  eG<payp,tvov* 


136  OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


of  His  bloody  sacrifice,  must  appeal  to  us  as  profoundly 
significant :  “  He  refused  to  relinquish  the  wounds 

which  He  had  received  for  us,  but  preferred  to  take 
them  with  Him  to  Heaven,  in  order  to  exhibit  [them]  to 
His  Heavenly  Father  [as]  the  purchase  price  of  our 
liberty.”  32 

b)  The  doctrine  of  Christ’s  eternal  priesthood 
in  Fleaven  has  given  rise  to  three  separate  theo¬ 
logical  problems:  («)  What  is  the  precise  na¬ 
ture  of  His  everlasting  intercession  for  us?  (/?) 
Does  He  continue  to  offer  a  true  sacrifice  in 
Heaven?  (y)  How  can  His  priesthood  endure 
after  the  Last  Judgment,  when  His  intercession 
must  of  necessity  cease? 

«)  Theologians  are  not  agreed  as  to  whether 
Christ’s  heavenly  intercession  for  the  human 
race  is  to  be  conceived  as  merely  implicit  ( inter¬ 
pretative i),  or  as  explicit  ( formalis ). 

The  former  view  is  held  by  Vasquez  and  Thomassin, 
the  latter  and  more  probable  one  by  Petavius.  As 
Christ  actually  prayed  for  us  while  on  earth,  there  is  no 
reason  to  assume  that  His  continued  intercession  in 
Heaven  is  silent  or  merely  implicit, —  especially  in  view  of 
the  promise  which  He  gave  His  Apostles  that  He  would 
ask  the  Father  to  send  them  another  Paraclete.  Cfr. 
John  XIV,  16:  ‘‘And  I  will  ask  the  Father,  and  he 
shall  give  you  another  Paraclete.”  Why  weaken  the 
term  “  ask  ”  or  “  petition  ”  ( rogare ,  ipcorav)  to  prop  the 

32  St.  Ambrose,  In  Luc.,  X,  n.  ut  Deo  Patri  nostrae  pretia  liberta- 
170 :  “Vulnera  accept  a  pro  nobis  tis  ostenderet 
coelo  inferre  maluit,  abolere  noluit , 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  PRIEST 


137 

doubtful  hypothesis  that  His  intercession  is  merely  vir¬ 
tual? 

Certain  of  the  Fathers  seem  to  contradict  the  view  de¬ 
fended  by  Petavius.  But  the  construction  put  upon  their 
utterances  by  Vasquez  and  Thomassin  is  untenable.  In 
reality  these  Fathers  merely  wish  to  emphasize  the  fact 
that  the  theandric  prayer  of  Jesus  has  none  of  the  de¬ 
fects  necessarily  inherent  in  purely  human  prayer,  such 
as  indigence,  a  feeling  of  helplessness  and  guilt,  an  ap¬ 
peal  to  mercy,  etc.  The  theandric  intercession  of  our 
heavenly  Advocate  is  based  upon  the  infinite  satisfaction 
which  He  has  given  for  us,  and  hence  is  in  no  wise 
an  humble  supplication  for  grace,  but  a  confident  asser¬ 
tion  of  His  merits  on  behalf  of  those  whom  He  has  re¬ 
deemed.  This  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  the  Church 
does  not  pray  or  instruct  her  children  to  pray :  “  Lord 

Jesus,  intercede  for  us !  ”  but :  “  Christ,  hear  us !  ” 
“  Christ,  have  mercy  on  us !  ”  33 

P)  Our  second  question,  it  may  be  well  to 
premise,  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  So- 
cinian  error  that  Jesus  offered  no  true  sacri¬ 
fice  on  earth  but  became  the  High  Priest  of  hu¬ 
manity  only  after  His  Ascension  into  Heaven. 
Accepting  the  sacrificial  character  of  His  death, 
theologians  merely  ask:  Does  He  continue  to 
offer  a  true  sacrifice  for  us  in  Heaven? 

Thalhofer  34  answered  this  question  in  the  affirmative, 
and  his  view  has  been  adopted  by  L.  Zill 35  and  P. 

33  Cfr.  Franzelin,  De  Verbo  In-  34  Das  Opfer  des  Alten  und  Neuen 
carnato,  thes.  51,  n.  iii;  De  Lugo,  De  Bundes,  pp.  201  sqq.,  Ratisbon  1870. 
Myst.  Incarnationis,  disp.  27,  sect.  35  Der  Brief  an  die  Hebraer,  pp. 
4,  n.  61  sqq.  430  sqq.,  Mainz  1879. 


138  OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


Schoulza.36  The  purpose  of  these  writers  in  taking  the 
position  they  do  is  twofold:  (i)  to  gain  a  basis  for  a 
reasonable  explanation  of  the  metaphysical  essence  of 
the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  (2)  to  give  a  tangible  con¬ 
tent  to  the  Scriptural  teaching  of  Christ’s  eternal  priest¬ 
hood. 

Thalhofer  declares  the  formal  element  of  sacrifice  to 
consist,  not  in  the  exterior  oblation  of  the  victim,  which  is 
in  some  manner  or  other  transformed,  but  solely  in  the 
interior  disposition  of  the  sacrificing  priest.  But  this 
theory  is  contrary  to  the  common  teaching  of  Catholic 
divines  and  does  not  square  with  certain  generally  ad¬ 
mitted  facts.  Granted  that  the  disposition  of  the  sac¬ 
rificing  priest  is  the  intrinsic  and  invisible  forma ,  and 
consequently  the  most  important  part  of  a  sacrifice;  yet 
it  can  never  supply  the  extrinsic  physical  form.  Christ’s 
constant  pointing  to  His  wounds,  of  which  Thalhofer 
makes  so  much,  is  merely  a  significant  gesture  which 
effects  no  intrinsic  transformation  of  the  kind  strictly 
demanded  by  the  notion  of  sacrifice.  Zill  attempted  to 
construct  a  Scriptural  basis  for  Thalhofer’s  theory,  but 
his  deductions  had  already  been  substantially  refuted  by 
Tournely  in  his  argument  against  Faustus  Socinus.37  St. 
Paul,  far  from  asserting  that  Christ  offers  sacrifice  in 
Heaven,  or  that  He  continues  His  earthly  sacrifice  there, 
expressly  declares  that  our  Lord  merely  asserts  ad  mo - 
dum  interpellation's  and  forever  the  sacrifice  He  has 
once  for  all  consummated  on  the  Cross.  This  interpella¬ 
tion  can  in  no  wise  be  construed  as  a  sacrifice.38 

36  Liturgia  Catholica  Fidei  Magis -  38  Cfr.  F.  Stentrup,  Soteriologia, 

tra,  Insulis  1901.  thes.  82;  Pesch,  Prael.  Dogmat,, 

37  Tournely,  De  Incarn.,  qu.  5,  Vol.  IV,  3rd  ed.,  pp.  300  sqq. 
art.  2\  cfr.  Franzelin,  De  Verbo  In- 

carnato,  p.  539. 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  PRIEST 


139 


y)  There  remains  the  third  question:  How 
can  Christ’s  priesthood  endure  forever,  since 
after  the  Last  Judgment  not  only  the  hypothetical 
sacrifice  construed  by  Thalhofer,  but  likewise  His 
intercession  for  us  must  needs  cease? 


There  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  our  Lord’s 
priestly  intercession  in  Heaven  will  end  with  the  last 
Mass  celebrated  on  earth.  Nevertheless,  His  priesthood 
will  continue,  in  a  threefold  respect.  (1)  He  will  re¬ 
main  “  a  priest  for  ever  ”  in  dignity  ( secundum  digni¬ 
tatem ),  because  His  sacerdotal  character  stands  or  falls 
with  the  Hypostatic  Union,  and  consequently  is  indelible 
and  incapable  of  being  lost.39  (2)  Christ’s  priesthood 
endures  eternally  in  respect  of  its  effectiveness  ( secun¬ 
dum  effectum ),  in  so  far  as  the  fruits  of  the  sacrifice 
of  the  Cross  are  unceasingly  renewed  in  the  grace  and 
glory  enjoyed  by  the  Elect  in  Heaven.40  (3)  Christ 
remains  the  eternal  High  Priest  of  humanity  secundum 
affectum ;  for,  while  He  does  not  offer  up  a  perpetual 
sacrifice  in  the  strict  and  proper  sense  of  the  term,  He 
causes  a  sweet  burnt-offering  of  unending  adoration  and 
thanksgiving  to  rise  before  the  throne  of  the  Most  Holy 
Trinity, —  which  is  after  all  the  ultimate  purpose  and 
end  of  all  creation. 


39  Cfr.  Thesis  I,  supra,  pp.  127 
sqq. 

40  Cfr.  St.  Thomas,  S.  Theol.,  3a, 
qu.  22,  art.  5:  “In  officio  sacerdotis 
duo  possunt  considerari ;  primo  qui- 
dem  ipsa  oblatio  sacrifcii,  secundo 
ipsa  sacrificii  consummatio,  quae 
quidem  consistit  in  hoc,  quod  illi 
pro  quibus  sacrificium  offertur,  finem 


sacrificii  consequuntur.  Finis  autem 
sacrificii  quod  Christus  obtulit,  non 
fuerunt  bona  temporalia,  sed 
aeterna,  quae  per  eius  mortem  adi- 
piscimur L.  c.,  ad  2:  “  Licet  pas- 

sio  et  mors  Christi  de  caetero  non 
sint  iteranda,  tamen  virtus  illius 
hostiae  semel  oblatae  permanet  in 
aeternum.” 


10 


CHAPTER  II 

Christ's  prophetical  office 

i.  Definition  of  the  Term  “Prophet.” — 
The  word  “Prophet”  is  etymologically  derived 
from  the  Greek  verb  npo^fu ,  to  speak  for  some  one , 
then,  to  foretell  (Hebr.  =  votes,  seer).  In  a 
wider  sense  it  signifies  a  teacher  ( magister , 
SiSaovcaAos j  Hebr.  =  speaker,  orator).1 

The  Bible  employs  the  term  Prophet  in  both  mean¬ 
ings,  most  frequently  however  in  the  latter.  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  prophetism  was  not  limited  to  extraordinary  pre¬ 
dictions  of  future  events,  but  comprised  primarily  the 
ordinary  teaching  office,  which  was  clothed  with  di¬ 
vine  authority  and  exercised  by  instruction,  admonition, 
warnings,  and  threats.  The  so-called  prophetic  schools 
of  the  Jews  were  colleges  founded  for  the  training  of 
professional  teachers  of  religion,  not  of  prophets  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  term.2 

To  say  that  Christ  exercised  the  office  or  func¬ 
tion  of  a  prophet,  is  equivalent  to  saying  that 
He  possessed  in  the  highest  degree  the  gift  of 
prophecy  ( donum  prophetiae)  and  the  vocation 

1  Cfr.  R.  Comely,  Comp.  Intr.  in  in  Libros  V.  T.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  267 

N.  T.,  8th  ed.,  p.  381.  sqq.,  Paris  1887;  Maas,  op.  cit., 

2  Cfr.  R.  Comely,  Introd.  Spec.  Vol.  I,  108  sqq. 

I4O 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  PROPHET 


141 


of  a  teacher  (magisterium) .  Soteriology  deals 
with  Him  only  as  a  teacher. 

2.  The  Prophetic  Teaching  Office  of 
Christ. — The  Old  Testament  prophets  hailed  the 
future  Messias  as  a  teacher  of  truth,  and  when 
Jesus  Christ  appeared  in  Palestine,  He  actually 
exercised  the  functions  of  a  teacher  in  the  most 
exalted  sense  of  the  term. 


a)  Moses,  who  both  as  the  founder  of  a  religion  and 
a  teacher  par  excellence ,  is  a  prominent  type  of  the 
Messias,  uttered  the  famous  prophecy  registered  in  Deut. 
XVIII,  15  :  “  The  Lord  thy  God  will  raise  up  a  prophet 3 
of  thy  nation  and  of  thy  brethren  like  unto  me :  him  thou 
shalt  hear.”  4  This  passage  is  expressly  applied  to  Christ 
in  the  New  Testament.5 

Isaias  foretells  that  the  coming  Messias  will  deliver 
humanity  from  sin  and  error.  Is.  LXI,  1  sq. :  “  The 

spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  the  Lord  hath 
anointed  me :  he  hath  sent  me  to  preach  to  the  meek,  to 
heal  the  contrite  of  heart,  and  to  preach  a  release  to  the 
captives,  and  deliverance  to  them  that  are  shut  up ;  to 
proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,  and  the  day 
of  vengeance  of  our  God :  to  comfort  all  that  mourn.” 

Christ  Himself  publicly  read  this  passage  in  the  syna¬ 
gogue  at  Nazareth,  and  when  he  had  folded  the  book. 


3 

•  T 

4  Cfr.  Deut.  XVIII,  18. 

5  Acts  III,  22  sqq.  “Be  penitent, 
therefore,  and  be  converted,  that 
your  sins  may  be  blotted  out;  that 
when  the  times  of  refreshment  shall 
come  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord, 
and  he  shall  send  him  who  hath 
been  preached  unto  you,  Jesus 


Christ,  whom  heaven  indeed  must 
receive,  until  the  times  of  the  resti¬ 
tution  of  all  things,  which  God  hath 
spoken  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy 
prophets,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
world.  For  Moses  said:  A  prophet 
shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up 
unto  you  of  your  brethren,  like  unto 
me:  him  you  shall  hear.  .  .  .” 


142 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


said  (Luke  IV,  21):  '‘This  day  is  fulfilled  this  scrip¬ 
ture  in  your  ears.”  6 

b)  The  New  Testament  has  confirmed  the  ful¬ 
filment  of  the  Old  Testament  prophecies.  It  has 
also  demonstrated  their  truth.  When  Jesus  was 
engaged  in  recruiting  His  disciples,  Philip  said  to 
Nathanael:  “We  have  found  him  of  whom 
Moses  in  the  law,  and  the  prophets  did  write, 
Jesus  the  son  of  Joseph  of  Nazareth.”  7  It  was 
with  the  utmost  confidence  that  our  Lord  appealed 
to  Moses :  “Think  not  that  I  will  accuse  you  to 
the  Father.  There  is  one  that  accuseth  you, 
Moses,  in  whom  you  trust.  For  if  you  did  be¬ 
lieve  Moses,  you  would  perhaps  believe  me  also; 
for  he  wrote  of  me.”  8  After  He  had  fed  five 
thousand  people  with  a  few  loaves  of  bread,  those 
who  had  witnessed  the  miracle  enthusiastically 
exclaimed:  “This  is  of  a  truth  the  prophet  that 
is  to  come  into  the  world.” 9  When  He  had 
raised  the  widow’s  son  to  life,  there  came  a  fear 
on  those  about  Him,  “and  they  glorified  God, 
saying :  A  great  prophet 10  is  risen  up  among 
us;  and,  God  hath  visited  his  people.”  11 

c)  Christ  exercised  His  teaching  office  by  jour¬ 
neying  about  Palestine  and  preaching  the  glad 
tidings  of  salvation. 


6  Cfr.  Matth.  Vf  5. 

7  John  1,  45. 

8  John  V,  45  sq. 


9  6  TTpocpriri/js  6  epxo/Jievos  els  rby 
Koa/xoV'  John  VI,  14. 

10  irpo(p7]Tr]s  p.eyas- 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  PROPHET 


143 


St.  Matthew  records  that  “  the  people  were  in  admira¬ 
tion  at  his  doctrine;  for  he  was  teaching  them  as  one 
having  power,  and  not  as  the  scribes  and  Pharisees.”  12 
He  presented  Himself  as  the  absolute  Teacher  of  truth. 
Cfr.  John  XVIII,  37:  “For  this  was  I  born,  and  for 
this  came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  should  give  testimony 
to  the  truth.”  For  it  was  “  His  Father  ”  who  spoke 

through  Him,13  and  He  Himself  was  “  the  way,  and  the 
truth,  and  the  life.”  14  Consequently,  there  can  be  no 
other  teacher  beside  or  above  Him :  “  Neither  be  ye  called 
masters ;  for  one  is  your  master,15  Christ.”  16  Acknowl¬ 
edging  Him  as  the  sovereign  teacher  of  mankind,  Nico- 
demus  says :  “  Rabbi,  we  know  that  thou  art  come  a 

teacher  from  God ;  for  no  man  can  do  these  signs  which 
thou  dost,  unless  God  be  with  him.”17  Even  so  great 
a  teacher  as  St.  John  the  Baptist  literally  paled  in  the 
glorious  halo  which  encircled  the  Divine  Master :  “  He 
was  not  the  light,  but  was  to  give  testimony  of  the 
light.”  18 

Nor  must  we  forget  the  power  of  our  Saviour’s  ex¬ 
ample,  which  more  effectively  even  than  His  words 
prompted  men  to  embrace  the  truth  and  lead  a  virtuous 
life.  Fully  realizing  that  “  Example  serves  where  pre¬ 
cept  fails,”  St.  Luke  in  writing  his  Gospel,  as  he  him¬ 
self  admits,19  was  chiefly  concerned  with  the  things 
which  “  Jesus  began  to  do  and  to  teach.”  20  That  it  was 
the  Redeemer’s  express  purpose  to  set  a  good  example 
is  manifest  from  His  own  declaration  in  John  XIII,  15: 
“  For  I  have  given  you  an  example,21  that  as  I  have 

12  Matth.  VII,  28  sq.  18  John  I,  8.  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss, 

13  Cfr.  John  XIV,  io;  XVII,  8.  Christ ology,  pp.  31  sqq.;  H.  Schell, 

14  John  XIV,  6.  Jahve  und  Christus,  pp.  403  sqq., 

15  M agister,  Ka9r)yr)Tris-  Paderborn  1905. 

16  Matth.  XXIII,  10.  Cfr.  John  19  Acts  I,  1. 

XIII,  13.  20  Troiciv  re  ical  SiddoKeiP* 

17  John  III,  2,  21  virodeiy/xa* 


144 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


done  to  you,  so  you  do  also.”  St.  Paul  strongly  insists 
on  the  importance  of  our  being  made  comformable  to 
the  image  of  the  Son  of  God,22  and  did  not  rest  until 
Christ  had  been  formed  in  all  his  hearers.23  Christ 
was  the  beau-ideal  of  virtue,  because  He  was  without  sin ; 
and  His  example  was  most  effective,  because  He  was  im¬ 
pelled  by  supreme  charity.  This  accounts  for  the  inex¬ 
haustible  power  which  flows  from  the  imitation  of 
Christ  and  never  ceases  to  purify,  ennoble,  energize,  and 
rejuvenate  men  and  to  lead  them  on  to  moral  perfection. 
In  confirmation  of  this  truth  we  need  but  point  to  the 
lives  of  the  Saints.24 

d)  For  an  adequate  theological  explanation  of 
the  singular  greatness  and  perfection  of  Christ’s 
prophetical  office  we  must  go  to  its  fountain¬ 
head,  the  Hypostatic  Union. 

a)  Endowed  with  a  fulness  of  knowledge  unparalleled 
in  the  history  of  the  human  race,  Jesus  was  in  a  position 
to  propound  His  teaching  with  absolute  certainty  and  ir¬ 
resistible  conviction.25  Equipped  with  miraculous  pow¬ 
ers  and  the  gift  of  prophecy,  He  was  able  to  confirm  and 
seal  His  words  by  signs  and  miracles.  As  the  super¬ 
natural  Head  of  grace,  He  was  in  the  altogether  unique 
position  of  one  able  to  enlighten  his  hearers  with  the  torch 
of  faith  and  to  fire  their  hearts  with  His  grace.  In  all 
three  of  these  respects  He  has  absolutely  no  peer  among 
men,  and  it  is  sheer  folly  to  compare  Him  with  Socrates 

22  Rom.  VIII,  29.  ing  of  the  Fathers  consult  Petavius, 

23  Gal.  IV,  19.  De  Incarn.,  II,  10;  Stentrup,  Soteri- 

24  Cfr.  S.  Raue,  O.  F.  M.,  Chri •  ologia,  thes.  134  sqq. 

stus  als  Erzieher.  Eine  methodische  25  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology, 
Studie  iiber  das  hi.  Evangelium,  2nd  PP-  249  SQQ- 
ed.,  Freiburg  1902,  For  the  teach- 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  PROPHET  145 

or  even  with  the  greatest  of  the  prophets,  Moses  and  John 
the  Baptist 

/?)  Nor  can  it  be  urged  as  an  argument  against  the 
sublimity  of  His  prophetical  office,  that  Jesus  addressed 
Himself  only  to  the  Jews  of  Palestine.  He  had  excellent 
reasons  for  confining  His  personal  activity  to  that  particu¬ 
lar  nation  and  country.  We  will  enumerate  four  of  the 
principal  ones  given  by  St.  Thomas.26  (1)  He  had  to 
fulfil  the  promises  which  God  had  made  to  the  Jews  in 
the  Old  Testament.  (2)  It  was  becoming  that  the  Gos¬ 
pel  should  reach  the  gentiles  through  the  instrumentality 
of  God’s  Chosen  People.  (3)  Jesus  had  to  pay  due  re¬ 
gard  to  the  peculiar  mentality  of  the  Jewish  nation.  (4) 
The  method  He  chose  was  better  adapted  than  any  other 
to  demonstrate  the  triumphant  power  of  the  Cross.  After 
His  Resurrection  He  sent  out  His  disciples  to  teach  and 
baptize  all  nations,  and  when  He  had  ascended  into 
Heaven,  He  appointed  a  special  Apostle  for  the  gentiles. 
His  teaching  was  as  open  and  public  as  the  scene  of  His 
activity.  Unlike  the  pagan  philosophers,  He  made  no 
distinction  between  esoteric  and  exoteric  truths.  His 
motto  was :  “  That  which  I  tell  you  in  the  dark,  speak 

ye  in  the  light:  and  that  which  you  hear  in  the  ear, 
preach  ye  upon  the  housetops.” 27 

y)  Our  Divine  Lord  had  very  good  reasons  for  dis¬ 
daining  to  consign  His  heavenly  teaching  to  books.  It 
eminently  befitted  His  high  office  as  Teacher  of  man¬ 
kind  to  employ  the  most  perfect  mode  of  teaching, 
namely  oral  instruction,  which  goes  straight  to  the  heart 
and  reaches  all,  even  those  who  are  unable  to  read.  It  was 
for  this  same  reason,  in  the  opinion  of  St.  Thomas,  that 
He  commanded  His  Church  to  instruct  by  word  of  mouth 


26  S.  Thee!.,  3a,  qu.  4 2,  art.  1. 

27  Matth.  X,  27.  Cfr»  Thomas,  S.  Theoh,  3a,  qu.  4 2,  art.  3. 


1 46  OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 

and  constituted  oral  tradition  a  source  of  faith  side  by 
side  with  Sacred  Scripture.  Some  of  the  wisest  men 
of  antiquity  (e.  g.,  Socrates  and  Pythagoras)  exercised  a 
tremendous  influence  over  succeeding  generations  without 
ever  having  recourse  to  the  stylus  or  the  pen.  Oral  in¬ 
struction  was  admirably  adapted  to  the  propagation  of 
Christianity.  Had  our  Lord  presented  His  teaching  in 
the  form  of  bookish  lore,  consigned  to  parchment  or  papy¬ 
rus,  it  would  have  become  a  veritable  apple  of  discord. 
Then  again,  in  the  words  of  St.  Thomas,  “  those  who 
refused  to  believe  what  the  Apostles  wrote,  would  not 
have  believed  Christ  Himself  had  He  consigned  His  doc¬ 
trines  to  writing.”  28 

3.  The  Ecclesiastical  Magisterium  a  Con¬ 
tinuation  of  Christ's  Prophetical  Office. 
— As  the  priesthood  of  our  Divine  Lord  is  con¬ 
tinued  on  earth  by  the  celebration  of  the  Holy 
Sacrifice  of  the  Mass  and  the  administration  of 
the  Sacraments,  especially  Holy  Orders,  so  His 
prophetic  office  is  continued  by  the  magisterium 
of  the  Catholic  Church. 

a)  The  very  fact  that  Christ  established  a  Church  to 
teach  “  all  nations  ”  shows  that  He  wished  her  to  continue 
His  prophetical  office.  He  guaranteed  her  His  special 
assistance  and  promised  to  be  with  her  “  all  days,  even  to 
the  consummation  of  the  world.”  29  Having  established 
her  as  a  teacher,  Pie  sent  her  the  Spirit  of  Truth,  who 

28  S,  Theol.,  1.  c. — On  the  apoc-  Les  Origines  de  I’ldglise  d’Edesse  et 
ryphal  correspondence  between  our  la  Legende  d’ Abgar,  Paris  1888;  H. 
Lord  and  Abgar,  King  of  Edessa,  Leclerq,  art.  “Abgar”  in  the  Catholic 
cfr.  R.  A.  Lipsius,  Die  edessenische  Encyclopedia,  Vol.  I,  pp.  42  sq, 
Abgar  sage  kritisch  untersucht,  Matth.  XXVIII,  20, 

Braunschweig  1880;  J.  Tixeronf 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  PROPHET 


147 


informs  and  vivifies  her  as  the  soul  informs  and  actu¬ 
ates  the  body,  and  enables  her  to  keep  the  deposit  of  faith 
intact  against  all  attempts  at  diminution  or  distortion. 
Thus  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  and  of  her  Supreme 
Pontiff  ultimately  rests  upon  the  prophetic  office  of  Christ 
Himself,  who  is  the  infallible  source  and  teacher  of  all 
truth.30 

b)  This  explains  why  the  Church  participates  in  the 
prerogatives  of  the  prophetic  office  as  exercised  by  her 
Divine  Founder.  As  the  faithful  custodian  of  the  deposit 
of  faith  she  teaches  the  whole  truth.  There  is  no  higher 
magisterium  conceivable  than  hers.  The  “  spiritual 
church  ”  expected  by  the  Montanists  and  the  “  Johan- 
nine  church  ”  imagined  by  some  modern  heretics  are 
pure  figments.  Christianity  is  the  absolute  religion 
and  cannot  be  measured  by  the  inadequate  yardstick  of 
comparative  science.  The  Catholic  Church,  through  her 
connexion  with  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  enjoys 
a  truly  divine  authority,  by  which  she  proclaims  with 
infallible  certainty  the  dogmas  of  faith  and  morals  and 
condemns  heretical  errors  whenever  the  necessity  arises. 
Her  anathemas  are  as  truly  binding  011  all  men  as  her 
dogmatic  definitions.  Finally,  she  is  endowed  with  un¬ 
limited  adaptability,  which  enables  her  to  adjust  herself  to 
all  times  and  circumstances,  provided  they  do  not  run 
counter  to  the  orthodox  faith  and  the  eternal  principles  of 
true  morality.  No  matter  how  times  may  change,  the 
Catholic  Church,  ever  old  and  ever  young,  fills  them  with 
her  own  spirit,  overcomes  error  and  sin,  and  directs  all 
legitimate  efforts  for  the  betterment  of  the  race  into  their 
divinely  appointed  channels.  There  is  no  error  so  novel, 

30  Cfr.  P.  J.  Toner,  art.  “Infalli-  art.  “Unfehlbarkeit”  in  Herder’s 
bility”  in  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  Kirchenlexikon,  Vol.  XII,  pp.  2 40 
Vol.  VII,  pp.  790  sqq.;  J.  Pohle,  sqq. 


148 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


no  intellectual  malady  so  grave  that  the  Church  is  not 
able  to  counteract  it  with  antidotes  from  her  spiritual 
pharmacopoeia.  Our  own  time  furnishes  a  most  instruc¬ 
tive  exemplification  of  this  truth.  It  is  a  period  of 
transition  and  fermentation.  Pius  X  has  vigorously 
condemned  the  Modernistic  errors  endangering  the  faith, 
and  there  is  no  doubt  that  they  can  be  effectively  warded 
off  if  the  nations  will  listen  to  the  voice  of  Holy  Mother 
Church.31 

31  Cfr.  H.  Pesch,  S.  J.,  Die  sosiale  Befdhigung  der  Kirche,  3d  ed., 

Berlin  19x1. 


CHAPTER  III 


Christ's  kingship 

i.  Definition  of  the  Term. — The  word 
king  {rex,  Pam\e6s,^  denotes  a  sovereign  invested 
with  supreme  authority  over  a  nation,  country 
or  tribe. 

a)  Kingship  includes  three  separate  and  distinct 
functions:  legislative,  judiciary,  and  executive, 
which  together  constitute  the  supreme  power  of 
jurisdiction  or  government. 

The  royal  dominium  iurisdictionis  must  not  be  con¬ 
founded  with  what  is  known  as  the  right  of  ownership 
{dominium  proprietatis) .  The  latter  is  directed  to  the 
possession  of  impersonal  objects,  while  the  former  im¬ 
plies  the  governance  of  free  persons  or  subjects.  The 
two  differ  both  logically  and  in  fact,  and  neither  can  be 
directly  deduced  from  the  other.  The  ruling  power  of 
a  king  or  emperor  by  no  means  implies  the  possession 
of  property  rights  either  in  his  subjects  or  their  belong¬ 
ings.  The  subjects  of  a  monarch  are  as  free  to  possess 
private  property  as  the  monarch  himself,  not  to  speak  of 
the  right  of  personal  liberty. 

It  may  be  well  to  observe,  however,  that  these  limi¬ 
tations  apply  to  earthly  kings  only.  God,  being  the  Crea- 

m 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


150 

tor  and  Lord  of  the  universe,  is  the  absolute  owner  of  all 
things,  including  men  and  their  belongings.1 

b)  The  royal  power  with  its  various  func¬ 
tions  may  be  either  secular  or  spiritual.  The 
former  is  instituted  for  man's  earthly,  the  latter 
for  his  spiritual  benefit.  Christ's  is  a  spiritual 
kingdom,  and  will  continue  as  such  throughout 
eternity.  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Church  fre¬ 
quently  liken  His  kingship  to  the  office  of  a  shep¬ 
herd,  to  emphasize  the  loving  care  with  which  He 
rules  us  and  provides  for  our  necessities. 

2.  Christ's  Earthly  Kingship  as  Taught 
in  Sacred  Scripture. — Both  the  Old  and  the 
New  Testament  represent  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
as  a  true  King,  who  descended  upon  this  terres¬ 
trial  planet  to  establish  a  spiritual  kingdom.  This 
kingdom  is  the  Catholic  Church.  Christ  did  not 
come  as  a  worldly  monarch,  but  as  “the  bishop 
of  our  souls."  2 

a)  If  we  examine  the  Messianic  prophecies  of  the 
Old  Testament  we  find  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  or 
“  throne  of  David,”  represented  as  a  type  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom  that  was  to  come.  Cfr.  2  Kings  VII,  12  sq. : 
“  I  will  raise  up  thy  [David’s]  seed  after  thee,  which 
shall  proceed  out  of  thy  bowels,  and  I  will  establish 
his  kingdom.  He  shall  build  a  house  [i.  e .,  temple, 
church]  to  my  name,  and  I  will  establish  the  throne  of 

1  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss.  God:  His  Knowdbility,  Essence  and  Attributes , 
pp.  286  sqq. 

2  Cfr.  1  Pet.  II,  25. 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  KING 


I5i 


his  kingdom  for  ever.”  The  same  prediction  is  made 
in  Psalms  II,  XXX,  XXXVII,  XLV,  LXXII,  and  CIX. 
Isaias,3  Daniel,4  and  Zacharias 5  depict  the  Messias  in 
glowing  colours  as  a  Ruler,  as  the  Prince  of  peace  and 
the  mighty  General  of  a  great  army.  These  prophecies 
were  all  fulfilled,  though  not  in  the  manner  anticipated 
by  the  carnal-minded  Jews.  The  Messias  came  as  a 
King,  but  not  with  the  pomp  of  an  earthly  sovereign,  nor 
for  the  purpose  of  freeing  the  Jewish  nation  from  the 
yoke  of  its  oppressors. 

Nevertheless  the  New  Testament  hails  the  lowly  in¬ 
fant  born  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  as  a  great  King.  Even 
before  his  birth  the  Archangel  informs  His  Mother  that 
“  The  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of  David 
his  father,  and  he  shall  reign  in  the  house  of  Jacob  for 
ever.” 6  The  wise  men  hurried  to  His  manger  from 
the  far  East  and  anxiously  inquired :  “  Where  is  he 

that  is  born  king  of  the  Jews?”7  Yet  when,  after  the 
miraculous  multiplication  of  loaves,  the  Jews  tried 
to  “  take  him  by  force  and  make  him  king,”  Jesus 
“  fled  again  into  the  mountain  himself  alone.” 8  And 
when,  in  the  face  of  death,  Pilate  asked  Him :  “  Art 

thou  a  king  then  ?  ”  He  answered :  “  Thou  sayest 

that  I  am  a  king.” 9  After  they  had  crucified  Him, 
“  they  put  over  his  head  his  cause  written :  This  is 
Jesus  the  King  of  the  Jews.”  10  Sorely  disappointed  in 
their  worldly  hopes,  and  still  enmeshed  in  political  am¬ 
bitions,  the  two  disciples  who  went  to  Emmaus  lamented : 
“  But  we  hoped,  that  it  was  he  that  should  have  redeemed 


Israel.”  11 


3  Is.  IX,  6  sqq.,  n. 

4  Dan.  VII,  13  sqq. 

5  Zach.  IX. 

6  Luke  I,  32  sq. 

7  Matth.  II,  2. 


8  John  VI,  15. 

9  John  XVIII,  37. 

10  Matth.  XXVII,  37- 

11  Luke  XXIV,  21.  Cfr.  Acts  I,  6, 


152 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


b)  This  seeming  contradiction  between  the  Old 
Testament  prophecies  and  the  actual  life  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  finds  its  solution  in  the 
Church’s  teaching  that  His  is  a  purely  spiritual 
kingdom.  Cfr.  Is.  LX,  18  sqq. ;  Jer.  XXIII,  5 
sqq. ;  Ezech.  XXXVII,  21  sqq.  For  the  sake  of 
greater  clearness,  it  will  be  advisable  to  separate 
the  quaestio  iuris  from  the  quaestio  facti ,  and 
to  treat  each  on  its  own  merits. 

a)  The  quaestio  facti. —  Taking  the  facts  as  we  know 
them,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Christ  never  intended 
to  establish  an  earthly  kingdom.  He  fled  when  the  Jews 
attempted  to  make  him  king.12  He  acknowledged  the 
Roman  Emperor  as  the  legitimate  ruler  of  Palestine  and 
commanded  the  Jews  to  “  render  to  Csesar  the  things 
that  are  Caesar’s,  and  to  God  the  things  that  are  God’s.”  13 
He  consistently  refused  to  interfere  in  secular  affairs, 
as  when  he  said  to  the  man  who  asked  Him  to  ad¬ 
judicate  a  question  of  inheritance :  “  Who  hath  ap¬ 

pointed  me  judge,  or  divider,  over  you?”14  And  He 
expressly  declared  before  Pilate : 15  “  My  kingdom  is 

not  of  this  world.  If  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world, 
my  servants  would  certainly  strive  that  I  should  not  be 
delivered  to  the  Jews:  but  now  my  kingdom  is  not  from 
hence.”  16 

/?)  The  quaestio  iuris. —  What  first  strikes  us  from 
the  juridic  point  of  view  is:  Did  Christ  merely  refrain 
from  asserting  His  legal  claim  to  secular  kingship,  or 

12  John  VI,  15.  gia,  thes.  138.  For  a  critical  refu- 

13  Matth.  XXII,  21.  tation  of  Loisy’s  errors  see  M. 

14  Luke  XII,  14.  Lepin,  Christ  and  the  Gospel  (Eng- 

15  John  XVIII,  36.  lish  tr.),  Philadelphia  1910,  espe- 

16  Cfr.  Ferd.  Stentrup,  Soteriolo •  ially  pp.  475  sqq. 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  KING 


153 


had  He  no  such  :claim,  at  least  in  actu  primof  Catholic 
theologians  agree  that  as  “  the  Son  of  David  ”  Christ 
possessed  no  dynastic  title  to  the  kingdom  of  Juda ;  first, 
because  His  Messianic  kingdom  extended  far  beyond  the 
limits  of  Palestine,  in  fact  embraced  the  whole  world; 
and  secondly,  because  neither  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary 
nor  St.  Joseph,  though  both  descended  from  the  “  house 
of  David,”  had  any  hereditary  claim  to  the  throne  which 
had  been  irretrievably  lost  under  Jechonias.17  There  is 
another  point  on  which  theologians  are  also  of  one  mind. 
By  virtue  of  His  spiritual  kingship  the  Godman  possesses 
at  least  indirect  power  over  all  secular  affairs,  for  else  His 
spiritual  power  could  not  be  conceived  as  absolutely  un¬ 
limited,  which  would  have  imperiled  the  purpose  of  the 
Incarnation.  This  indirect  power  over  worldly  affairs  is 
technically  known  as  potestas  indirecta  in  temporalia. 

Its  counterpart  is  the  potestas  directa  in  temporalia , 
and  in  regard  to  this  there  exists  a  long-drawn-out  con¬ 
troversy  among  theologians.  Gregory  of  Valentia  and 
Cardinal  Bellarmine 18  hold  that  Christ  had  no  direct 
jurisdiction  in  secular  or  temporal  matters,  while 
Suarez  19  and  De  Lugo 20  maintain  that  He  had.  The 
affirmative  opinion  appeals  to  us  as  more  probable, 
though  the  Scriptural  texts  marshalled  in  its  favor  by 
De  Lugo 21  cannot  be  said  to  be  absolutely  convincing. 
These  texts  (Matth.  XXVIII,  18;  Acts  X,  36;  1  Cor. 
XV,  27;  Apoc.  I,  5  and  XIX,  16)  can  be  explained 
partly  by  the  doctrine  of  the  communicatio  idiomatum ,22 
partly  by  reference  to  our  Lord’s  spiritual  kingdom.  De 
Lugo’s  theological  arguments,  however,  are  very  strong 

17  Cfr.  Jer.  XXII,  30.  20  De  Myst.  Incarn.,  disp.  30,  §  1. 

18  De  Rom.  Pontifice,  V,  4  sq.  21  L.  c.,  n.  5. 

19  De  Myst.  Vitae  Christi,  disp.  22  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology , 

42,  sect.  2.  pp.  184  sqq. 


1 54 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


indeed.  Take  this  one,  for  example.  Christ’s  direct 
jurisdiction  in  matters  temporal  is  based  on  the  Hypo¬ 
static  Union.  On  account  of  the  Hypostatic  Union  His 
sacred  humanity  was  entitled  to  such  excellencies  and 
prerogatives  as  the  power  of  working  miracles,  the  ful¬ 
ness  of  knowledge,  the  highest  measure  of  the  beatific 
vision,  the  dignity  of  headship  over  all  creatures,2'3  etc. 
And  it  is  but  reasonable  to  conclude  that  there  must 
have  been  due  to  Him  in  a  similar  way  that  other  pre¬ 
rogative  which  we  may  call  kingship  over  all  crea¬ 
tures.24  From  this  point  of  view  it  may  be  argued  that 
the  theandric  dignity  of  our  Lord,  flowing  from  the  Hy¬ 
postatic  Union,  gave  Him  an  imprescriptible  claim  to 
royal  power,  so  that,  had  He  willed,  He  could  have 
deposed  all  the  kings  and  princes  of  this  world  and  con¬ 
stituted  Himself  the  Head  of  a  universal  monarchy. 

Bellarmine’s  apprehension  that  this  teaching  might 
exert  a  pernicious  influence  on  the  papacy,  is  absolutely 
groundless.  For,  in  the  first  place,  Christ’s  vice-gerent 
on  earth  is  not  Christ  Himself,  and  secondly,  the  pre¬ 
rogatives  and  powers  enjoyed  by  our  Lord,  even  those 
of  a  purely  spiritual  nature,  are  not  eo  ipso  enjoyed 
by  the  Pope.  “  Christ  was  able  to  do  many  things  in  the 
spiritual  realm,”  rightly  observes  De  Lugo,  “  which  the 
Pope  cannot  do;  for  example,  institute  sacraments,  con¬ 
fer  grace  through  other  than  sacramental  channels, 
etc.”  25 

These  considerations  also  explain  why  Christ  declared 
Himself  legally  exempt  from  the  obligation  of  paying 
taxes  and  “  paid  the  didrachmas  ”  solely  to  avoid  scan¬ 
dal.26 

23  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology,  25  L.  c.,  n.  n. 

pp.  239  sqq.  26  Cfr.  Matth.  XVII,  23  sqq. 

24  De  Lugo,  l.  c.,  n.  8. 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  KING 


155 


The  question  as  to  the  property  rights  enjoyed  by  our 
Divine  Saviour  may  be  solved  by  the  same  principle 
which  we  have  applied  to  that  of  His  temporal  juris¬ 
diction.  Vasquez  was  inconsistent  in  rejecting  De 
Lugo’s  solution  of  the  former  problem  after  accepting 
his  view  of  the  latter.27  For,  while  it  is  perfectly  true 
that  the  Godman  never  laid  claim  to  earthly  goods,  but 
lived  in  such  abject  poverty  that  He  literally  “  had  not 
where  to  lay  his  head,”  28  this  does  not  argue  that  He 
had  no  legal  right  to  acquire  worldly  possessions.  The 
simple  truth  is  that  He  had  renounced  this  right  for  good 
reasons. 

It  is  an  article  of  faith,  defined  by  Pope  John  XXII 
in  his  Constitution  “  Quum  inter  nonnnllos  ”  that  Christ 
actually  possessed  at  least  a  few  things  as  His  personal 
property.29 

3.  Christ’s  Heavenly  Kingship,  or  the 
Dogma  of  His  Ascension  and  Sitting  at  the 
Right  Hand  of  the  Father. — The  Resurrec¬ 
tion  of  our  Lord  and  His  Descent  into  hell  merely 
formed  the  preliminaries  of  His  kingly  office.  It 
was  by  His  glorious  Ascension  that  He  took  for¬ 
mal  possession  of  His  royal  throne  in  Heaven, 
which  Holy  Scripture  describes  as  “sitting  at  the 
right  hand  of  God.”  Both  His  Ascension  and 
His  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God  are  funda¬ 
mental  articles  of  faith,  as  may  he  judged  from 
the  fact  that  they  have  been  incorporated  into  the 
Apostles’  Creed. 

27  De  Incarn.,  disp.  87,  cap.  6. 

28  Luke  IX,  58.  Cfr.  St.  Thomas, 

11 


Summa  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  40,  art.  3. 
29  Denzinger-Bannwart,  n.  494. 


156  OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


a)  There  is  no  need  of  entering  into  a  detailed  Scrip¬ 
tural  argument  to  prove  these  dogmas.  Our  Lord  Him¬ 
self  clearly  predicted  His  Ascension  into  Heaven,30  and 
the  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  the  presence  of  many  wit¬ 
nesses.  Mark  XVI,  19:  “And  the  Lord  Jesus,  after 
Fie  had  spoken  to  them,  was  taken  up  into  heaven,  and 
sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God.”  31 

The  argument  from  Tradition  is  copiously  developed 
by  Suarez  in  the  51st  disputation  of  his  famous  treatise 
De  My steriis  Vitae  Christi. 

Our  Lord  “  ascended  by  His  own  might,”  says  the 
Roman  Catechism,  “  and  was  not  raised  aloft  by  the 
power  of  another,  as  was  Elias,  who  4  went  up  ’  in  a 
fiery  chariot  into  heaven  (4  Kings  II,  11),  or  as  was 
the  prophet  Flabacuc  (Dan.  XIV,  35  sqq.),  or  Philip  the 
deacon  (Acts  VIII,  39),  who,  borne  through  the  air 
by  the  divine  power,  traversed  far  distant  parts  of  the 
earth.  Neither  did  He  ascend  into  heaven  solely  as 
God,  by  the  supreme  power  of  the  Divinity,  blit  also 
as  man ;  for  although  the  Ascension  could  not  have  taken 
place  by  natural  power,  yet  that  virtue  with  which  the 
blessed  soul  of  Christ  had  been  endowed,  was  capable 
of  moving  the  body  as  it  pleased;  and  his  body,  now 
glorified,  readily  obeyed  the  command  of  the  actuating 
soul.  And  thus  we  believe  that  Christ,  as  God  and 
man,  ascended  by  His  own  power  into  heaven.”  32 

The  phrase,  “  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God,”  must 
not,  of  course,  be  interpreted  literally,  since  with  God 
there  is  neither  right  nor  left.  It  is  a  figurative  ex¬ 
pression,  intended  to  denote  the  exalted  station  occupied 

SO  John  VI,  63;  XIV,  1  sqq.;  rbv  ovpavov  Kal  eKadiaev  e/c 
XVI,  28.  tov  Oeov. 

31  'O  juev  obi'  Kvpios  ’Itjcous  /aera  33  Cat.  Rom.,  P.  I,  c.  7,  qu.  2. 
\a\rjaai  avTois  avTjXTjfupdii  eh  Cfr.  S.  Thomas,  S.  Theol.,  3a,  qu. 

57,  art.  1. 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  KING 


157 


by  our  Lord  in  heaven,33  and  also  His  calm,  immutable 
possession  of  glory  and  jurisdiction  over  the  whole 
universe.34  It  is  in  His  capacity  of  royal  judge  that 
Jesus  will  one  day  reappear  with  great  power  and  maj¬ 
esty  “to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead.” 35 

b)  The  two  dogmas  under  consideration  have 
both  a  Christological  and  a  Soteriological  bearing. 

a)  From  the  Christological  point  of  view  our  Saviour’s! 
Ascension  as  well  as  His  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of 
the  Father  signalize  the  beginning,  or  rather  the  con¬ 
tinuation,  of  the  status  exaltationis,  of  which  His  Resur¬ 
rection  and  Descent  into  hell  were  mere  preludes.  His 
humiliation  ( status  exinanitionis)  in  the  “  form  of  a 
servant,” 36  His  poverty,  suffering,  and  death,  made 
way  for  an  eternal  kingship  in  Heaven.  The  truly 
regal  splendor  of  our  Divine  Redeemer  during  and 
after  His  Ascension  is  more  strongly  emphasized  in  the 
Apostolic  Epistles  than  in  the  Gospels.  In  the  Epistles 
the  epithet  “  Lord  ”  ( Dominus ,  6  KvpLos)  nearly  always 
connotes  royal  dominion.  Cfr.  1  Tim.  VI,  15:  “Who 
is  the  Blessed  and  only  Mighty,  King  of  kings,  and  Lord 
of  lords.”  It  is  only  since  His  Ascension  into  Heaven 
that  Christ  rules  the  universe  conjointly  with  the  Father, 
though  this  joint  dominion  will  not  reach  its  highest 
perfection  till  the  day  of  the  Last  Judgment,  when  all 
creation  will  lie  in  absolute  subjection  “  under  His  feet.”  37 

/?)  From  the  Soteriological  point  of  view  it  would  be 
wrong  to  represent  Christ’s  Ascension  (not  to  speak  of 
His  Resurrection  and  Descent  into  hell)  as  the  total  or 

83  Cfr.  Heb.  I,  13.  36  Cfr.  Pohle-Preuss,  Christology, 

34  Cfr.  Eph.  I,  20  sqq.  pp.  95  sq. 

S6  Cfr.  St.  Thomas,  S,  Theol.,  3a,  37  Cfr.  Eph.  I,  22  sqq.;  Heb.  II,  8. 

qu.  58. 


158  OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


even  partial  cause  ( causa  meritoria)  of  our  Redemption. 
The  atonement  was  effected  solely  by  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Cross.  Nevertheless  St.  Paul  writes:  “Jesus  .  .  .  en¬ 
tered  .  .  .  into  heaven  itself,  that  he  may  appear  now  in 
the  presence  of  God  for  us.”  38  In  other  words,  He  con¬ 
tinues  to  exercise  His  mediatorial  office  in  Heaven. 
How  are  we  to  understand  this?  St.  Thomas  explains 
it  as  follows :  “  Christ’s  Ascension  is  the  cause  of  our 

salvation  in  a  twofold  way,  first  on  our  part,  and  sec¬ 
ondly  on  His.  On  our  part,  in  so  far  as  His  Ascension 
directs  our  minds  to  Him.  .  .  .  On  His  part,  in  so  far 
as  He  ascended  for  our  salvation,  (i)  to  prepare  for 
us  the  way  to  Heaven,  ...  (2)  because  Christ  entered 
Heaven,  as  the  High  Priest  entered  the  Holy  of  holies, 
to  make  intercession  for  us;39  .  .  .  (3)  in  order  that, 
seated  as  Lord  God  on  the  throne  of  Heaven,  He 
might  thence  send  us  divine  gifts.”  40  As  is  apparent 
from  the  last-mentioned  two  points,  Christ’s  kingship 
is  closely  bound  up  with  His  priesthood.  In  fact  it 
may  be  said  in  a  general  way  that  the  three  functions 
or  offices  of  our  Divine  Redeemer  are  so  closely  inter¬ 
twined  that  they  cannot  be  separated. 

For  the  special  benefit  of  canonists  we  would  observe 
that  the  threefold  character  of  these  functions  furnishes 
no  adequate  basis  for  the  current  division  of  the  power 
of  the  Church  into  potestas  ordinis,  potestas  magisterii , 
and  potestas  iurisdictionis .41  The  traditional  division  into 
potestas  ordinis  and  potestas  iurisdictionis  is  the  only 
adequate  and  correct  one  from  the  dogmatic  point  of 
view.42 


38  vvv  i/uf>avi(T8rjvai  TW  irpoauiru 
rov  Oeov  \nrkp  ijpiuv-  Heb.  IX,  24. 

39  Heb.  VII,  25. 

40  S'.  Theol.,  3a,  qu.  57,  art.  6. 


41  This  division  is  employed  by 
Walter,  Phillips,  Richter,  Hinschius, 
and  others. 

42  Cfr.  Scheeben,  Dogmatik,  Vol. 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  KING 


159 


4.  Christ’s  Kingship  as  Continued  in  His 
Church  on  Earth. — We  have  shown  that  our 
Divine  Redeemer  did  not  claim  secular  or  tem¬ 
poral  jurisdiction.  It  follows  a  fortiori  that  the 
Church  which  He  has  established  is  a  purely 
spiritual  kingdom  and  must  confine  herself  to  the 
government  of  souls. 

a)  The  Catholic  Church  was  not  established  as  a  polit¬ 
ical  power.  She  represents  that  peaceful  Messianic  king¬ 
dom  which  was  foreshadowed  by  the  Old  Testament 
prophets  and  which  the  Prince  of  Peace  founded  with  His 
Precious  Blood.  Hence  the  hierarchical  order  displayed 
in  the  papacy,  episcopate,  priesthood,  and  diaconate,  is 
purely  spiritual.  Hence,  too,  the  means  of  sanctification 
which  the  Church  employs  (prayer,  sacrifice,  and  the 
sacraments)  are  of  an  exclusively  spiritual  character. 
Christ,  who  was  the  King  of  Kings,  did  not  disturb  the 
earthly  monarchs  of  His  time  in  their  jurisdiction,  and  it 
cannot  be  the  mission  of  His  Church  to  grasp  at  political 
power  or  treat  temporal  rulers  as  her  vassals.  Hers 
is  a  purely  spiritual  dominion  for  the  sanctification  of 
souls. 

Being  God’s  kingdom  on  earth,  the  Church  exists  in 
and  for  this  world,  but  is  not  of  it.  The  theory  of  a  few 
medieval  canonists  that  she  enjoys  direct  jurisdiction  over 
all  nations  and  rulers,  has  no  foundation  either  in 
Sacred  Scripture  or  in  history.  It  is  unevangelical  for 
the  reason  that  Christ  never  claimed  such  power.  It 
is  unhistorical  because  the  “  donation  of  Constantine,” 
on  which  it  rests,  is  a  fiction.43  This  theory,  which  was 

I,  p.  67,  Freiburg  1873;  Cavagnis,  43  Cfr.  L.  Duchesne,  The  Begin - 
Instit.  Iuris  Publ.  Ecclesiae,  4th  ed.,  nings  of  the  Temporal  Sovereignty 
Vol.  I,  p.  24,  Rome  1906.  of  the  Popes  (English  tr.),  p.  120, 


i6o 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


inspired  by  the  imposing  phenomenon  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  has  never  been  adopted  by  the  Church,  nor  is  it 
maintained  by  the  majority  of  her  theologians  and  canon¬ 
ists.  The  relation  between  Church  and  State  still  re¬ 
mains  a  knotty  problem.44  Harnack  seriously  distorts  the 
truth  when  he  says :  “  The  Roman  Church  in  this  way 

privily  pushed  itself  into  the  place  of  the  Roman  world- 
empire,  of  which  it  is  the  actual  continuation ;  the  empire 
has  not  perished,  but  has  only  undergone  a  transforma¬ 
tion.  If  we  assert,  and  mean  the  assertion  to  hold  good 
even  of  the  present  time,  that  the  Roman  Church  is  the 
old  Roman  Empire  consecrated  by  the  Gospel,  that  is  no 
mere  ‘  clever  remark/  but  the  recognition  of  the  true 
state  of  the  matter  historically,  and  the  most  appropriate 
and  fruitful  way  of  describing  the  character  of  this 
Church.  It  still  governs  the  nations ;  its  popes  rule  like 
Trajan  and  Marcus  Aurelius;  Peter  and  Paul  have  taken 
the  place  of  Romulus  and  Remus ;  the  bishops  and  arch¬ 
bishops,  of  the  proconsuls;  the  troops  of  priests  and 
monks  correspond  to  the  legions;  the  Jesuits,  to  the  im¬ 
perial  body-guard.  The  continued  influence  of  the  old 
Empire  and  its  institutions  may  be  traced  in  detail,  down 
to  individual  legal  ordinances,  nay,  even  in  the  very 
clothes.  That  is  no  church  like  the  evangelical  com¬ 
munities,  or  the  national  churches  of  the  East ;  it  is  a 
political  creation,  and  as  imposing  as  a  world-empire, 
because  the  continuation  of  the  Roman  Empire.”  45  The 
possession  of  political  power  may  be  useful,  nay,  rela¬ 
tively  speaking,  necessary  to  insure  to  the  Pope  the  free 
and  untrammelled  exercise  of  his  spiritual  functions ;  but 


London  1908;  J.  P.  Kirsch  in  the 
Catholic  Encyclopedia,  Vol.  V,  pp. 
1 18  sqq. 

44  Cfr.  J.  Pohle  in  Herder’s  Kir- 
chenlexikon,  Vol.  XII,  229  sqq. 


45  Das  Wesen  des  Christentums, 
p.  157,  Leipzig  1902  (English  tr. : 
What  is  Christianity ?  p.  270,  2nd 
ed.,  New  York  1908). 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  KING  '  161 

it  does  not  enter  into  the  essence  of  the  papacy,  which  for 
centuries  has  flourished  without  it  and  still  commands  the 
highest  respect  in  spite  of  its  spoliation  by  the  Italian 
government. 

,  / 

b)  The  Church  exercises  a  truly  royal  domin¬ 
ion  over  the  souls  of  men,  and  hence  must  be  enti¬ 
tled  to  all  the  prerogatives  of  a  spiritual  kingship. 
.That  is  to  say,  within  the  limits  of  her  divinely  or¬ 
dained  constitution,  she  possesses  legislative  as 
well  as  judicial  power  over  her  members,  includ¬ 
ing  the  executive  right  of  inflicting  punishment.46 
There  can  be  no  exercise  of  judicial  power  with¬ 
out  the  power  of  compulsion  ( potestas  coactiva  s. 
vindicativa )  and  it  is,  moreover,  a  formally  de¬ 
fined  dogma  that  the  Church  possesses  this 
power.47 

The  penalties  which  she  is  authorized  to  inflict  are, 
of  course,  predominantly  spiritual  (penitential  acts,  ec¬ 
clesiastical  censures,  and  especially  excommunication).48 
But  she  can  also  impose  temporal  and  bodily  punish¬ 
ments  ( poenae  temporales  et  corporales ).  We  know 
that  she  has  exercised  this  power,  and  it  would  be  temera¬ 
rious  to  deny  that  she  possesses  it.49 

Has  the  Church  also  the  power  to  put  malefactors 
to  death  ( ius  gladii)  ?  Canonists  are  not  agreed  on 
this  point,  though  all  admit  that  if  the  Church  decides 
to  inflict  the  death  penalty,  the  sentence  must  be  carried 

46  Cfr.  Matth.  XVI,  19;  XVIII,  48  Cfr.  1  Cor.  IV,  21;  V,  5;  2 

15  sqq.  Cor.  XIII,  1  sq.;  1  Tim.  I,  20. 

47  Cfr.  Denzinger-Bannwart,  En-  49  Cfr.  Bouix,  De  Iudic.,  Vol.  I, 

chiridion ,  n.  499,  640,  1504  sq.  p.  66,  Paris  1855. 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


162 

out  by  the  secular  power  ( brachium  saeculare),  because  it 
would  be  unbecoming  for  the  Spouse  of  Christ  to  stain 
her  hands  with  blood,  even  if  a  deadly  crime  had  been  per¬ 
petrated  against  her. 

It  is  a  historical  fact  that  the  Church  has  never  pro¬ 
nounced  (much  less,  of  course,  executed)  the  death  sen¬ 
tence  or  claimed  the  right  to  inflict  it.  Whenever,  in 
the  Middle  Ages,  she  found  herself  constrained  to  pro¬ 
nounce  judgment  for  a  crime  which  the  secular  power 
was  wont  to  punish  by  death  ( e .  g.  voluntary  and  obsti¬ 
nate  heresy),  she  invariably  turned  the  culprit  over  to 
the  State.  The  cruel  practice  of  burning  heretics  has 
fortunately  ceased  and  will  never  be  revived. 

Regarded  from  the  standpoint  of  religious  principle, 
the  question  of  the  ius  gladii  is  purely  academic.  The 
great  majority  of  canonists  seem  to  hold  that  the  Church 
does  not  possess  the  right  of  inflicting  capital  punishment. 
The  contrary  teaching  of  Tarquini  and  De  Luca50  has 
occasioned  much  unfavorable  criticism,  and  Cavagnis 
undoubtedly  voices  the  conviction  of  most  contemporary 
canonists  when  he  says  51  that  the  so-called  ius  gladii  has 
no  solid  basis  either  in  Scripture  or  Tradition.  Our  Di¬ 
vine  Redeemer  did  not  approve  the  infliction  of  capital 
punishment,52  nay,  He  restrained  His  followers  from 
inflicting  bodily  injury.53  St.  Paul,  in  spite  of  his  sever¬ 
ity,  never  took  recourse  to  any  but  spiritual  measures. 
The  great  Pope  Nicholas  I  said:  “  God’s  holy  Church 
has  no  other  sword  than  the  spiritual;  she  does  not  kill, 
she  dispenses  life.”  54  Her  kingdom  is  purely  spiritual, 

50  Inst,  luris  Eccl.  Publ.,  Vol.  I,  53  Cfr.  Matth.  XXVI,  52. 

pp.  261  sqq.,  Rome  1901.  54  " Sancta  Dei  Ecclesia  gladiutn 

51  Inst.  luris  Publ.  Eccl.,  4th  ed.,  non  habet  nisi  spiritualem,  non  occi - 
Vol.  I,  pp.  190  sqq.,  Rome  1906.  dit,  sed  vivificot ."  (Deer.  Grat.,  c. 

52  Cfr.  Luke  IX,  53  sqq.  6,  causa  33,  qu.  2.) 


CHRIST  A  TRUE  KING  163 

and  hence  she  must  leave  the  infliction  of  capital  pun¬ 
ishment  to  the  secular  power.55 

The  most  determined  opponent  of  the  Church’s 
royal  office  is  modern  Liberalism,  which  employs 
all  the  powers  of  civil  government  to  obstruct 
the  exercise  of  her  spiritual  jurisdiction  or  to 
circumscribe  that  jurisdiction  as  narrowly  as  pos¬ 
sible.  Among  the  means  invented  for  this  pur¬ 
pose  are  the  so-called  ius  circa  sacra ,  the  appella- 
tio  tamquam  ab  abusupQ  and  the  placetum  re- 
giump1 — in  a  word  the  whole  iniquitous  system 
known  in  English-speaking  countries  as  Csesaro- 
papism  or  Erastianism  58  and  based  on  the  per¬ 
nicious  fallacy  that  the  State  is  supreme  in 
ecclesiastical  affairs. 

Readings  :  — *  St.  Thomas,  Summa  Theologica,  3a,  qu.  22,  and 
the  Commentators. —  A.  Charre,  Le  Sacrifice  de  THomme-Dieu, 
Paris  1899. — *  V.  Thalhofer,  Das  Opfer  des  Alten  und  Neuen 
Bundes,  Ratisbon  1870. —  Idem,  Die  Opferlehre  des  Hebrder- 
briefes ,  Dillingen  1855. —  W.  Schenz,  Die  priesterliche  Tdtigkeit 
des  Messias  nach  dem  Propheten  Isaias,  Ratisbon  1892. —  J. 
Grimal,  Le  Sacerdoce  et  le  Sacrifice  de  Notre  Seigneur  Jesus - 
Christ,  Paris  1908  (English  tr.  by  M.  J.  Keyes,  The  Priesthood 
and  Sacrifice  of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Philadelphia  1915). — 
*  Fr.  Schmid,  Christus  als  Prophet,  nach  den  Evangelien  darge - 

otic  Encyclopedia ,  Vol.  I,  pp.  650 
sqq. 

57  Cfr.  S.  Luzio  in  the  Catholic 
Encyclopedia,  s.  v.  “  Exequatur,” 
Vol.  V,  pp.  707  sq. 

58  On  the  true  meaning  of  this 
loosely  used  term  see  B.  Ward  in 
the  Catholic  Encyclopedia ,  Vol.  V, 
pp.  514  sqq. 


55  Cfr.  A.  Vermeersch,  S.  J., 
Tolerance  (tr.  by  W.  H.  Page),  pp. 
58  sqq.,  London  19x3;  J.  Pohle,  art. 
“  Toleration  ”  in  the  Catholic  Ency¬ 
clopedia,  Vol.  XIV ;  J.  Keating,  S. 
J.,  in  The  Month,  No.  582,  pp.  607 
sqq. 

56  Cfr.  R.  L.  Burtsell  in  the  Cath- 


164 


OFFICES  OF  THE  REDEEMER 


stellt,  Brixen  1892. —  Tanner,  S.  J.,  Cruentum  Christi  Sacrihcium , 
Incruentum  Missae  Sacrificium  Explicatum,  Prague  1669. —  B. 
Bartmann,  Das  Himmelreich  und  sein  Konig  nach  den  Synopti- 
kern,  Paderborn  1904. —  A.  J.  Maas,  S.  J.,  Christ  in  Type  and 
Prophecy,  2  vols.,  New  York  1893-5. —  M.  Lepin,  Christ  and  the 
Gospel,  or  Jesus  the  Messiah  and  Son  of  God,  Philadelphia  1910. 
—  Wilhelm-Scannell,  A  Manual  of  Catholic  Theology,  Vol.  II, 
pp.  196-207,  2nd  ed.,  London  1901. —  W.  Humphrey,  S.  J.,  The 
One  Mediator,  pp.  1-41,  London  s.  a. —  P.  Batiffol,  L’Enseignement 
de  Jesus,  Paris  1906. —  J.  H.  Newman,  Sermons  Bearing  on  Sub¬ 
jects  of  the  Day,  New  Impression,  London  1898,  pp.  52-62. — Other 
authorities  quoted  in  the  foot-notes. 


APPENDIX 


< 


THE  ATONEMENT  IN  ITS  RELATION  TO  GOD’S  IMMUTABILITY 
J  (See  page  39) 

There  is  another  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ’s 
vicarious  atonement  which  deserves  a  brief  refutation 
because  it  has  seemed  so  strong  to  at  least  one  Catholic 
■writer  (Schell)  that  it  has  led  him  to  substitute  a  new 
and  false  conception  of  the  atonement  for  the  traditional 
one  of  Catholic  theology.  This  objection  is  based  on  the 
immutability  of  the  Divine  Essence  and  may  be  formu¬ 
lated  as  follows :  The  atonement  implies  a  change  of 
mind  or  heart  in  God,  but  there  can  be  no  change  in  God 
because  He  is  actus  purissimus. 

To  assume  a  real  change  of  mind  or  heart  in  God  as  a 
.result  of  the  atonement  would  indeed  contradict  the  dogma 

i 

of  His  immutability.  But  there  is  no  such  change  in¬ 
volved  in  the  dogma  of  the  atonement,  rightly  understood. 
'As  the  sun  by  means  of  the  same  rays  produces  contrary 
effects,  e.  g.  melts  ice  and  dries  out  a  swamp,  according 
to  the  differing  quality  of  matter,  so  the  immutable  will 
of  God  either  hates  or  loves  man  according  as  his  moral 
state  renders  him  worthy  or  unworthy  of  divine  favor. 
The  change  involved  in  the  process  of  justification,  there¬ 
fore,  is  not  in  the  least  a  change  on  the  part  of  God,  but 
entirely  on  the  part  of  the  sinner.  God  immutably  loves 
that  which  is  good  and  holy,  whereas  the  sinner  changes 
from  evil  to  good.  When  we  say  that  the  passion  of  Our 
Lord  “  appeased  ”  the  divine  wrath,  we  do  not  mean  that 

165 


1 66 


APPENDIX 


it  affected  God  after  the  manner  of  a  real  cause  or  motive 
and  induced  Him  to  change  His  mind  or  will.  The  divine 
intellect  and  the  divine  will  are  predetermined  in  and  by 
themselves  from  all  eternity  and  admit  no  external  influ¬ 
ence.  In  speaking  of  a  reconciliation  of  God  or  the  ap¬ 
peasement  of  His  wrath,  the  Church  and  her  theologians 
merely  adapt  themselves  to  the  understanding  of  the  peo¬ 
ple,  and  what  they  mean  to  inculcate  is  that  the  redemp¬ 
tion  of  the  human  race  was  predetermined  by  God  from 
all  eternity  solely  on  condition  that  adequate  satisfaction 
would  be  given  by  the  Godman.  No  matter  whether  the 
future  Redemption  be  conceived  as  an  absolute  or  as  a 
hypothetical  result  of  God’s  predetermination,  there  is  no 
trenching  upon  His  immutability,  because  He  inevitably 
foresaw  the  fulfilment  or  non-fulfilment  of  the  condition 
and  arranged  His  eternal  plan  of  salvation  accordingly. 
In  the  objective  order  of  things  God  can  will  a  future 
event  either  immutably  in  itself,  or  in  connection  with 
and  as  a  consequence  of  some  other  event,  which  is  related 
to  the  first  as  a  cause  to  its  effect.  The  causes  involved 
in  such  a  hypothetical  decree  of  the  divine  will  operate 
entirely  outside  of  the  Divine  Essence  without  in  any  wise 
influencing  or  changing  that  Essence.1 


1  See  the  chapter  on  “  God’s  Im¬ 
mutability  ”  in  the  first  volume  of 
this  series,  God:  His  Knowability, 
Essenca,  and  Attributes,  2nd  ed., 
pp.  298-305,  St.  Louis  1914,  and  P. 


Stufler’s  paper,  "  Die  Erlosungstat 
Christi  in  Hirer  Besiehung  su  Gott /* 
in  the  Innsbruck  Zeitschrift  fur 
katholische  Theologie,  1906,  pp.  385 
sqq. 


INDEX 


A 

Abelard,  54. 

Adam,  24,  26,  27,  28,  29,  33,  40, 

42,  49  sq. 

Adamantius,  52. 

Adequacy  of  the  atonement,  60 
sqq. 

Adoration,  112. 

*'A i8tjs  92  sqq. 

/Eons,  6. 

Albert  the  Great,  30. 

Alexander  VIII,  78. 

Ambrose  Catharinus,  31. 

Ambrose,  St.,  29,  135  sq. 

Angels,  16  sq.,  33  sq.,  80  sq. 
Anselm,  St.,  21,  54,  55. 

’A vrC\vTpop)  62. 

Apocatastasis,  80. 

Appellatio  tamquam  ab  abusu , 
163. 

Ascension,  Christ’s,  155  sqq. 
Athanasius,  St.,  15,  29. 

Atonement,  Vicarious,  35  sqq. ; 
Properties  of,  60  sqq. ;  Real¬ 
ization  of,  84  sqq. 

Augustine,  St.,  10,  16,  21,  22, 

29,  33,  42,  53,  67,  79,  82,  93, 

95,  124  sq. 

B 

Bajus,  73. 

Baptism,  103. 

Baptism  of  Christ,  129. 

Barnabas,  Epistle  of,  121. 
Bellarmine,  153,  154. 

Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  St.,  53. 
Bernard  of  Siena,  31. 

1 67 


Berruyer,  67. 

Beza,  92. 

Blavatsky,  Madame,  44. 

Body  of  Christ,  Glorified,  105 
sq. 

Bonaventure,  St.,  26  sq. 

Books,  Why  Christ  wrote  no, 
145  sq. 

Bougaud,  31. 


C 

Csesaropapism,  163. 

Calvin,  10  sq.,  75,  91,  92,  94. 
Calvinists,  123. 

Capital  punishment,  Has  the 
Church  the  right  to  inflict 
it?  161  sqq. 

Capreolus,  58. 

Cavagnis,  162. 

Child,  Why  Christ  came  into 
the  world  as  a,  17  sq. 

Christ,  Our  Mediator,  7  sqq ; 
His  Incarnation,  13  sqq. ; 
Why  He  assumed  a  human 
rather  than  an  angelic  na¬ 
ture,  16  sqq.;  Why  He  came 
into  the  world  as  a  child, 
17  sq. ;  Gained  merits  for  us, 
56  sq. ;  When?  57  sq. ;  The 
principal  object  of  His  meri¬ 
torious  actions,  58  sq. ;  Ade¬ 
quacy  of  His  atonement,  60 
sqq. ;  Superabundance  there¬ 
of,  70  sqq.;  Died  for  all  the 
faithful,  75  sqq. ;  Died  for 
all  men,  77  sqq.;  His  death 
on  the  cross,  85  sqq.;  His 


INDEX 


1 68 


descent  into  hell,  91  sqq. ; 
His  Resurrection,  101  sqq. ; 
His  priesthood,  ill  sqq.,  127 
sqq.;  His  intercession  for  us 
in  Heaven,  135  sqq. ;  His 
prophetical  office,  140  sqq- ; 
His  kingship,  149  sqq. ;  His 
Ascension  and  sitting  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father,  155 
sqq. 

’  Christus,  129. 

Chrysostom,  St.  John,  71. 

Church,  The  Catholic,  146  sqq., 
159  sqq. 

Clement  VI,  74- 

Clement  of  Rome,  St.,  51. 

Congruity  of  the  Redemption, 

13  sqq-. 

Constantine,  Donation  of,  159. 

Cross,  85  sqq.;  Sacrifice  of  the 
1 14  sqq. 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  St.,  71. 

D 

Damascene,  St.  John,  16. 

Dante,  98. 

David,  153- 

Death  of  Christ,  85  sqq.,  ill 
sqq. 

De  Luca,  162. 

Deluge,  100  sq. 

De  Lugo,  26,  153  sqq. 

Demiurge,  6. 

De  Rada,  63. 

Descent  into  hell,  Christ’s,  91 
sqq. 

Devil,  Role  of  the,  in  the  In¬ 
carnation,  51  sqq. 

Diekamp,  Fr.  80. 

Dominus,  157. 

Dorholt,  B.,  21,  41. 

Du  Cappucce,  31. 

Duns  Scotus,  30,  63. 

Durandus,  91. 

E 

Ephesus,  Third  General  Coun¬ 
cil  of,  44  sq.,  1 16. 

Erastianismi,  163. 


Eternity  of  Christ’s  priesthood, 
133  sqq. 

Expiation,  112,  121. 

F 

Faber,  F.  W.,  31. 

Francis  de  Sales,  St.,  31. 
Franzelin,  66. 

Frassen,  63. 

Funke,  B.,  21. 

G 

Gay,  31. 

Gnosticism,  41,  43  sq. 
Gcrttschalk,  77. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  52. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  St.,  52. 
Gregory  of  Valentia,  26,  66, 

153- 

Grotius,  Hugo,  51. 

H 

Harnack,  55,  160. 

Hell,  Christ’s  descent  into,  91 
sqq. 

Henno,  63. 

Hierarchy,  159. 

Holy  Orders,  146. 

Holy  Roman  Empire,  160. 
Homo  gloriosus,  26,  30. 

Homo  passibilis,  26,  30. 
Hypostatic  Union,  14,  22,  63, 
65,  74,  123,  129,  133,  139,  144, 

154- 

I 

Imitation  of  Christ,  144. 
Impeccantia,  42. 

Incarnation,  The,  13  sqq.,  19, 
21  sq.,  25  sqq.,  127  sq. 
Inferiores  partes  terrae,  93. 
Infernum,  94. 

Infinite  value  of  Christ’s  atone¬ 
ment,  72. 

Innocent  X,  76. 

Irenaeus,  St,  52,  93. 

Isaias,  45  sqq.,  131,  141  sq. 


INDEX  169 


Ius  circa  sacra,  163. 
Ius  gladii,  161  sqq. 

J 


Jansenists,  79. 

Jansenius,  75  sq. 

Janssens,  L.,  26. 

Jewish  sacrifice,  117  sq. 

John  XXII,  155. 

John  the  Baptist,  143. 

Joseph,  St.,  153. 

Judge,  Christ  the  royal,  157. 
Jurisdiction  of  the  Church, 
159  sq. 

Justification,  103. 

K 


Kenosis,  20. 

King,  149  sq. 

“King  of  the  Jews,”  151. 
Kingship,  Christ’s,  149  sqq. 
Kleutgen,  26. 


L 

Last  Judgment,  157. 

Last  Supper,  132. 

Lateran,  Fourth  Council  of 
the,  91. 

Leo  IX,  104. 

Lessius,  17,  26,  33. 

Leibniz,  19. 

Liberalism,  163. 

Limbo,  Speculations  regarding 
the  location  of,  98. 

Limbus  patrum,  91  sq.,  94,  95. 
Limbus  puerorum,  96  sqq. 
Logos,  6,  24. 

Luke,  St.,  143. 

Lull,  Raymond,  19. 
Lutheranism,  40. 

M 

Magisterium,  The  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal,  146  sqq. 

Malebranche,  19. 

“Man  of  Sorrows,”  131. 


Martyrdom  not  a  true  sacrifice, 
126. 

Mary  B.  V.,  153. 

Mass,  1 16,  132,  146. 

Mastrius,  64. 

Mediator,  5  sqq. 

Mediator  nafuralis,  7. 

Mediator  per  gratiam,  7. 
Mediatorship,  5  sqq. 
Melchisedech,  127,  130,  131  sq. 
Merit,  55  sqq.  ( 

Merits  of  Christ,  56  sqq. 
Meritum  de  condigno,  56. 
Meritum  de  congruo,  56. 
Messias,  141. 

Milton,  98. 

Modernism,  50,  148. 
Monophysitism,  122,  123. 
Montanism,  147. 

Mosaic  sacrifices,  11 7  sqq. 
Moses,  141,  142,  145. 

N 

Necessity  of  the  Redemption, 
18  sqq. 

Nestorianism,  122,  123. 
Nicholas  I,  162. 

Nominalists,  61. 

O 

Offices  of  the  Redeemer,  no 
sqq.  # 

Optimism,  19  sq. 

Ordination  to  the  priesthood, 
Christ’s,  127  sqq. 

Origen,  52,  80. 

Origenism,  104. 

“.Our  Father,”  The,  43. 

P 


Pantheism,  41. 

Paraclete,  136  sq. 

Passion,  Christ’s,  72,  86  sqq. 
Paul,  St.,  38,  48,  50,  76,  79,  103, 
IOS,  1 18  sqq.,  128  sq.,  130, 
13 1  .sq.,  134,  138,  144,  162. 
Pelagianism,  41  sqq. 

Pell,  G.  A.,  41. 


170 


INDEX 


Perfection  of  the  atonement, 
Intrinsic,  60  sqq. ;  Extrinsic, 
75  sqq. 

Pesch,  Chr.,  26. 

Petavius,  26,  77,  136  sq. 

Peter,  St.,  99  sq. 

Pfleiderer,  55. 

Pilate,  151,  152. 

Pius  V,  73. 

Pius  X,  148. 

Placetum  regiuni,  163. 

Plato,  95. 

Palycarp,  St,  51. 

Pope,  154. 

Potestas  coactiva  of  the 
Church,  16 1. 

Poverty  of  Christ,  155. 

Prayers  of  Christ,  132  sq. 

Precious  Blood,  48  sq.,  61  sq., 

88. 

Predestinarianism,  75  sqq. 

Predestination,  75. 

Predestination  of  the  Re¬ 
deemer,  24  sqq. 

Priest,  Christ  a  true,  in  sqq., 
127  sqq. 

Priesthood  of  Christ,  hi  sqq., 
127  sqq. 

Prophet,  Christ  as  a,  140  sqq. 

Prosper  of  Aquitaine,  79. 

Punishment,  The  Church’s 
right  to  inflict,  161. 

Purgatory,  94,  95  sq. 

R 

Rationalism,  38,  41  sqq.,  115. 

Reatus  culpae,  36. 

Reatus  poenae,  36,  37. 

Redemption,  Congruity  of  the, 
13  sqq.;  Necessity  of  the,  18 
sqq.;  A  free  gift  of  God,  20 
sqq. ;  Predestination  of  the, 
24  sqq.;  Through  Christ’s 
vicarious  atonement,  35  sqq. 

Resurrection,  The,  101  sqq. 

Richard  of  St.  Victor,  21. 

Rigor  iustitiae,  66,  69. 

Risi,  31. 

Riviere,  J.,  52. 

Rupert  of  Deutz,  30. 


S 

Sacrifice,  in  sqq. 

Sacrifice,  Bloody,  III  sqq. 

Sacrificial  act,  Christ’s,  125  sq. 

Satisfaction,  35  sqq.,  55  sqq.,  60 
sqq. 

Schell,  31. 

Schoulza,  P.,  137  sq. 

Scotists,  25  sq.,  30  sqq.,  61, 
63  sq. 

Second  Person  of  the  Trinity, 
Why  did  He  become  incar¬ 
nate?  15  sq. 

“Servant  of  God,”  46  sq. 

Shepherd,  Christ  our,  150. 

Sin,  Grievous,  36  sq. 

Sitting  at  the  right  hand  of 
God  the  Father,  155  sqq. 

Socinianism,  38,  42  sq.,  51,  115, 
123,  130,  131,  137. 

Socinus,  Faustus,  42,  138. 

Socinus,  Laelius,  42. 

Socrates,  88,  95,  144. 

Sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
Christ,  88. 

Stancarus,  Francis,  123. 

Status  exaltationis,  157. 

Status  exinanitionis,  157. 

Stentrup,  26. 

Suarez,  22,  31,  33,  61,  66,  69, 
7  h  156. 

T 

Tanner,  66. 

Tarquini,  162. 

Teacher,  Christ  as  a,  140  sqq. 

Temporal  power  of  the  papacy, 
160  sq. 

Tepe,  26. 

Teresa,  St.,  90. 

Tertullian,  80,  93,  121  sq. 

Thalhofer,  137  sq.,  139. 

Theosophy,  41,  44. 

Thomas,  St.,  On  the  functions 
of  mediatorship,  8;  On  the 
mystery  of  the  Incarnation, 
14  sq. ;  On  the  motive  of  the 
Incarnation,  26  sq. ;  On  the 
infinity  of  grievous  sin,  36; 


INDEX 


On  the  scope  of  Christ’s 
merits,  59;  On  the  dignity  of 
Christ’s  flesh,  72;  On  the  ne¬ 
cessity  of  Qirist’s  Passion, 
72  sq. ;  On  the  universality 
of  the  atonement,  82  sq. ;  On 
the  congruity  of  Christ’s 
death  on  the  cross,  88  sq. ; 
On  His  descent  into  hell,  96; 
On  sacrifice,  114;  On  the 
priesthood,  139;  On  the  ques¬ 
tion  why  Christ  confined  His 
personal  activity  to  one  par¬ 
ticular  time  and  country, 
145 ;  On  the  question  why 
thie  Redeemer  taught  only  by 
word  of  mouth,  145  sq. ;  On 
Christ’s  Ascension,  158. 

Thomassin,  136  sq. 

Thomists,  26  sqq.,  64  sq.  . 

Toledo,  Eleventh  Council  of, 
106  sq. 

Toleration,  163. 

Toletus,  Card.,  26,  29. 

Toumely,  21,  138. 

Tradition,  145  sq. 

Trent,  Council  of,  45,  56,  58,  78, 
81,  85,  1 16,  124,  130. 

Triumph  over  hell,  Christ’s  95. 


171 
U 

Unction  of  Christ,  127  sqq. 
"Unigenitus”  Bull,  73  sq. 
Universality  of  the  atonement, 
75  sqq. 

.V 

Vasquez,  26,  136  sq.,  155. 
Vicarious  atonement,  35  sqq. ; 

Properties  of,  60  sqq. 
Voluntas  salviiica ,  75,  82,  97. 


W 

Wyclif,  18  sq. 

Y 

Ysambert,  31. 


Z 

Zill,  L.,  137,  138. 
Zwinglians,  123. 


\ 


■\ 


I 


Date  Due 

*» 

NOV  1  5  ’63 

* 

r~ 

<f> 

